Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Recession

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the impact of the recession (a) on Wales and (b) on Neath.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The transformation of the Welsh economy over recent years has left it well placed to weather the effects of the recession. All the indications are that the future prospects for the Welsh economy are very good indeed.

Mr. Hain: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recession is creating a terrible housing crisis in Wales? People come to my surgeries in tears. One young woman sleeps with her 14-month-old baby on the living room floor of her parents' home because there is nowhere else for her. In another case, two adults, four children and another couple—a total of eight people—live in a three-bedroomed house. Those problems could be solved at a stroke if the Secretary of State would release £500,000 from housing capital receipts funds in Wales and let councils build houses that are so desperately needed. Does the Secretary of State not care about those human tragedies?

Mr. Hunt: To put the matter in perspective, the number of housing units built in Wales in the past 10 years has risen by 8 per cent., whereas the population has risen by just over 2 per cent. We are putting increased resources into housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Housing for Wales is now building a record number of homes and the prospects are very good.

Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the opening by the Cabot factory in Barry of the new silica fume plant, one of the most modern in Europe?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, and I was glad that my hon. Friend could he with me on that important occasion—a £48 million investment, promising a state-of-the-art factory and tremendous prospects for the future. Following that opening, the opening of Revlon at Maesteg last week, and the announcement about Northern Telecom, I am glad to announce today an industrial investment package of £28 million involving the planned creation of more than 814 new jobs. I am delighted to make that announcement, which comes as another tremendous boost for Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment stands at 124,000 and is rising, and that last year 5,500 manufacturing jobs were lost in Wales? Does not the Chancellor's decision to scrap the National Economic Development Council call into question the whole future of the Secretary of State's planned Welsh economic council? Did the Chancellor consult the right hon. Gentleman before he made his statement?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Our plans for the Welsh economic council continue and we shall shortly issue a consultation paper. On unemploy-ment, the figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency show that in July 1986, 4,274 people were unemployed; in June 1987, the figure had fallen to 3,689; in April 1992, it had fallen to 2,923; and last month, it fell again to 2,855. The prospects for his constituency and for Wales are very good.

Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were it not for the Government's policies, the impact of the world recession on Wales would have been far more severe?

Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that my hon. Friend asks me that question, because we have seen a transformation of Wales in the past 10 years. The offers of regional assistance accepted by employers since 1979 are forecast to save more than 50,000 jobs in Wales and to create more than 100,000 new jobs. The transformation of Wales has secured its future.

Home Adaptations

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the waiting times for approved home adaptations for the disabled in each local authority in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Local councils must deal with all applications for disabled facilities grants within six months of receiving them.

Mr. Wardell: As renovation grants and adaptation grants for the disabled are usually mandatory under the Housing Acts, why has the Welsh Office discriminated against disabled people by transferring the funding of those mandatory grants from the special credit allowance to the basic credit allowance? That change of policy has effectively ended the ringfencing of a vulnerable group in society. Does not that mean that elderly and disabled people throughout Wales look forward with trepidation to the implementation of the Community Care Act next year?

Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no changes to the regulations; the disabled facilities grants remain mandatory. The policy changes give local councils far more flexibility, which is necessary as they need to consider all the options in order to respond effectively. In the current year we have provided £26.3 million to deal with disabled facilities and other grants, compared with last year's expenditure of a little over £7 million.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister understand that local authorities in Wales face a crisis which has a knock-on effect for disabled people? Until 31 March, work to renovate houses to an acceptable standard and the installation of disabled facilities was possible in most districts, and the money spent was refunded. Now, as that refunding has come to an end, it is not possible to bring houses for disabled people up to acceptable standards. Disabled people will have to live in dampness and poverty for years to come unless we revert to the original policy.

Mr. Jones: As I have explained, we have substantially increased the funding for disabled facilities grants to £26.3 million compared with a little over £7 million. We have made a generous increase in allocation of £80 million for all mandatory home renovation grants, bringing the total figure to £143 million.

Local Government Services

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of county councils in Wales to discuss continuity and quality of local government services in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: On 11 May.

Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the two prime requirements for quality of services are, first, democratic accountability through the ballot box and, secondly, continuity so that people know where they are? Do the Government intend to introduce legislation before the recess to cancel or delay next year's county council elections or are they to allow the doubt and confusion to continue?

Mr. Hunt: The question about holding elections has been asked of me by the local authority associations, but it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, not me. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and, more particularly, his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) could give the Labour party's view on holding county council elections next year. It would also be helpful for other parties to do so, as they would aid my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and me in reaching a decision— [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) shouting at me—he is still the young pretender and has not yet taken over from his hon. Friend. I should warn him about what they used to do to young pretenders in medieval times—the same fate may well await him.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When the Secretary of State met council representatives, was he aware of the importance of the trading standards and consumer protection service as the last line of defence between the public and unscrupulous traders? How does he expect a uniformly high standard of consumer protection to be administered throughout Wales after local government reform?

Mr. Hunt: I am determined that a high standard should be maintained. I have been greatly assisted in that objective by the fact that we have now been able to establish a number of sub-groups on the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, whose members include representatives of county and district councils, as well as the Welsh Office. I want those sub-groups to work out the best possible way to deliver the services, with the best quality, once we have the new unitary authorities.

Youth Agency

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in establishing a youth agency for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am pleased to announce that the Wales Youth Agency was established with effect from 1 April this year. The appointment of Mr. Gerald Davies as chairman and Dr. Howard Williamson as vice-chairman was announced on 16 March. Other appointments will be made shortly.
The agency is the successor body to the Wales youth work partnership. It is funded by the Welsh Office under


the powers conferred by the Education Act 1944. It is expected to be fully operational by the autumn. Its grant in 1992–93 will be about £360,000.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assist us with an outline of the functions of this agency and what he sees as its principal purposes?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The agency will have three main functions. The first is to secure an effective partnership between all the agencies involved in youth work. Secondly, it will provide training for youth workers and ensure that they are well informed. Its third function will be to ensure that the aspirations of Welsh youth are expressed, and realised if possible. The ultimate aim of the agency will be to improve the quality of life for our young people.

Mr. Llew Smith: What proportion of the youths who are now leaving school are finding employment in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: About 61 per cent. of our young people do not leave school and go to work, partly because we encourage them to stay on at school as we want them to receive further education and training. As for those who go on to training, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a significant proportion leave training to go to work in due course.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money (a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of the Welsh total, will be spent on trunk roads in Dyfed in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Central Government provision for roads and transport in Wales in 1992–93 is £197 million. An analysis by county is not available, as the programme is subject to changing engineering, statutory and financial considerations.
Provision for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be announced in due course.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the analysis by Dyfed county council shows that less than 6 per cent. of the capital from the Welsh Office is spent on the 24 per cent. of the road network of Wales that lies within the county? Is he aware that all the local authorities and the members of the task force on whose strategy team the Secretary of State sits identify the fact that west Wales has serious problems with its road communications? Is he further aware that his answer is wholly inadequate, as are the sums allocated to road communications in west Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Although I do not deny the county council's figures, I should point out that they vary from year to year. In 1990–91, about £22.6 million was spent on motorways and trunk roads in Dyfed—12.6 per cent. of the total spent in Wales. I do not know why the county council should complain. There are nine trunk road schemes in the pipeline for Dyfed, costing about £81 million—five of them to be started before 1995 and four before 1998.
As for expenditure on roads, the hon. Gentleman will know that our expenditure on the M4, in particular on the Baglan-Lonlas section in west Wales, will greatly benefit life there.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on designating new environmentally sensitive areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to announce the designation of four new ESAs—Radnor and Anglesey by the end of this year, and Preseli and the Clwydian range by the end of next.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be very welcome in Radnor and, I hope, in Ynys Môn, which is represented by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement, when coupled with the common agriculture policy reform package announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, recognises the role of farmers in caring for our countryside? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that adequate funding will be made available to back the ESA scheme so that farmers are encouraged to join it voluntarily?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who made strong representations—[Interruption.] I could stop there—on the importance of placing Radnor as a high priority in the designation of new ESAs? I agree that it is important for those from towns and cities, who come to view the beautiful countryside, to recognise that it is mainly due to the farming community that they are able to benefit from it. However, they must also recognise that they must pay. Therefore, I have allocated £2.5 million to cover those agreements in the coming year.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, as far as it goes? Now is the time to develop a far more ambitious and comprehensive system of countryside management. May I press him on two points? First, will the rates payable under the four schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today bear at least some resemblance to the scales that applied in 1986? The Secretary of State will know that those scales have not been uprated and that they have been severely eroded by inflation. Secondly, is it not time to recognise that all farmers throughout Wales should be entitled to the payments, because that is one way to prevent the intolerable level of surpluses from increasing and, at the same time, compensating farmers for the losses that they will incur as a result of CAP reform?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's question contains many important points. I recognise that it is vital to ensure that we have the right level of payments. However, one must view that against the overall level of resources available and I believe that the scale of payments announced today will more than meet the present requirements. It is always important to keep an eye on all the various schemes operating throughout Wales. Tir Cymen, the countryside stewardship scheme, is another important one which is getting under way. National parks also play an important part in our strategy.
My announcement will mean that 24 per cent. of rural Wales will be covered by the new ESAs, which comes on top of the schemes for the Cambrian mountains and the extension of the scheme for the Lleyn peninsula. We must


learn the lessons from all that when we decide on which way to proceed. However, I take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Severn Bridge

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the level of tolls on the Severn bridge.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Department has received some 54 letters about the level of tolls as provided for in the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree with the RAC, which said a few days ago that hundreds of motorists make diversions of up to 60 miles in order to avoid paying the tolls on the Severn bridge? Does he also agree with the RAC that the small commercial vehicles that use the bridge should be placed in a different tolling category? Above all, does he agree that the position on the Severn bridge has become, as the RAC described it, "outrageous"? Is not it time that the Minister personally intervened not just for the sake of those who use the bridge but for the sake of the whole Welsh economy?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of points. On the RAC survey, which suggests that vehicles are being diverted, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the record of the Severn bridge is one of steady growth in traffic. I believe that that growth will continue and that is why we are providing a second Severn bridge. When the hon. Gentleman refers to small vehicles, I presume that means light vans. There was an unintended ambiguity in the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which we have now sought to clarify with the Severn Bridges (Description of Vehicles) Order 1992. There cannot be a change from the provisions of that Act. My feeling is that matters have settled down since the change in the tolling regime at the bridge. We all look forward to the tolling regime providing the new bridge by spring 1996.

Mr. Sweeney: Does not fixing the level of toll at £2.80 make it more difficult to collect the money? Would not it be better to change £3, with a guarantee that it would be pegged at that level for a considerable time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system of charging the owner of a light van who may be using it for private purposes considerably more than the owner of an ordinary car, which may weigh substantially more, is unjust?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is suggesting going against the provisions of the Severn Bridges Act, which was passed by the House. In that Act, the tolling regime is fully provided for, not only now but for the future, until the new bridge is paid for. It also covers maintenance of the existing bridge, and there can be no change of that Act except by the will of the House.

Water Quality

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss water quality in Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and his officials regularly have meetings with the chairman and

officers of the National Rivers Authority to discuss water quality and other matters associated with the discharge of the authority's functions in Wales.

Dr. Howells: The Minister's constituency shares a river with mine, the River Taff. If he is that confident about the quality of the water in the Taff, which I am not, does he agree that improvements to water quality should be speeded up, that we have treated our rivers for long enough as open sewers and that everyone who dumps effluent in the river, including Welsh Water, should be pursued ruthlessly by the NRA and fined? If he is, as he often says that he is, pleased with the improvement in water quality will he come to my constituency, where I promise that I will have my constituents line the banks of the River Taff to watch him take a running jump into it?

Mr. Jones: I think that I shall decline the hon. Gentleman's last offer, but I would go along with the general sentiment that he expresses. We all want to see further and continuing improvements. Already, there have been substantial improvements and 94 per cent. of river quality in Wales is at least of a good or fair standard, and that is a net improvement over the last time. I have also noticed that there has been a useful improvement—a significant population of migratory salmon and trout in the Taff—which I should like to see continue.

Job Initiatives

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he plans to introduce to safeguard jobs in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: My Department and the development agencies have in place a number of successful initiatives to safeguard jobs and create new ones.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State regret the surrendering of the ownership of Inmos from the British to other Governments?

Mr. Hunt: Discussions are continuing with Inmos and the European Commission and we still hope that they will come to a successful conclusion, so the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. I hope that he will take time to reflect on the announcements that I have been able to make today, because they have great significance for his area.
The 13 projects that have been backed by regional selective assistance—RSA—of more than £7 million include a major new project for Flexonics Automotive Ltd. at Crumlin, a new project for Vales Wiper Systems at Ystrad Mynach and another project that is being started by Electronics Manufacture and Test Ltd. at the Llantarnam park industrial estate. All these are good projects and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on them and realise that we are determined to continue to win new investment as well as taking every possible step to safeguarding existing investment.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Roger Evans—[Interruption.] As I have such a choice of Evanses, I call Mr. Jonathan Evans.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am obliged, Madam Speaker. May I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that his announcement about jobs will be widely welcomed in the Principality, if not by the Labour party? In his role of job creation, did he have any part to play in job creation


for the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, who was recently elevated to a position in the other House? As for the safeguarding of jobs, is my right hon. Friend able to offer any advice to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)?

Mr. Hunt: First, I should make it clear to the Opposition parties that the Evanses reign supreme on the Government Benches.
I do not want to comment especially on job creation, as I understand that it is a subject which divides one of the Opposition parties. I was personally delighted by the recognition given to the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside constantly preaches doom and gloom in the context of the Welsh economy, but the facts speak for themselves. We have had remarkable success. In the 12 months to April 1992, accepted RSA offers have safeguarded 4,868 jobs and created 8,257 new ones.

Mr. Rowlands: Has the Secretary of State read the recent report of Mid Glamorgan county council, which shows a huge and growing jobs gap in the county? The area might attract 5,000 jobs during the decade, but even an extra 15,000 would only maintain the present high levels of unemployment. There is talk of convergence of the economies of the Twelve, but it seems that we cannot have convergence in the United Kingdom, or even in Wales between mid and south Glamorgan.
Whatever the achievements that have resulted from the valleys initiative, is it not now time for a major new programme of positive discrimination in favour of valleys development to create a degree of convergence and to make up for the huge jobs gap which has been created and which is growing every day?

Mr. Hunt: I read the articles in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I was struck by some of the inconsistencies. For example, it was stated that there had been no inward investment projects in the valleys in the past year, but I know that there have been 20 such projects. I was first told about the report last week when I was in Maesteg opening the new plant for Revlon, which will safeguard 370 jobs and create 188 new ones. The hon. Gentleman will know of the investment by Mayor Sakata and Artec in Merthyr.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need constantly to pay attention to the valleys. That is exactly what my predecessor did in setting up the programme for the valleys. About £800 million will be available over the five years of a programme that has seen the largest land clearance programme in Europe, record levels of investment in factory building, substantial industrial support and urban renewals and many initiatives in training, health care and housing.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the effectiveness of the Welsh Development Agency in bringing new jobs to Wales? If the agency's work is not welcomed by Opposition Members, perhaps it could come to Dorset and do the same wonderful job for my constituents as it has done for the constituencies of Opposition Members.

Mr. Hunt: The WDA does a remarkably good job in its Conservative form. I strongly support the inward investment work that it is doing. I hope that it will not seek

to do the same for my hon. Friend's constituents, as that would militate against the impressive work that it is doing in Wales. I am sorry to bring my hon. Friend that sad news.

Mr. Barry Jones: With the loss of 5,500 manufacturing jobs last year, is it not clear that Wales needs a much stronger regional policy? Will the Secretary of State pledge that, in the review of assisted area status, Wales will not lose out?

Mr. Hunt: That is not a matter for me, but I am determined to do everything possible to secure the future attractiveness of our country for jobs. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, has he not noticed that whereas unemployment in Wales has always been considerably above the United Kingdom average, last month's figures show that, for the first time in more than 70 years, unemployment in Wales is now below the United Kingdom average? That is a reflection of the transformation that has taken place.

Green Issues

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who in his Department has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in his Department.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has assumed personal responsibility for overseeing the Welsh Office's environmental policies and programmes. The Department's wide-ranging respon-sibilities mean that environmental issues impact either directly or indirectly on the workloads of all Welsh Office staff. All are encouraged to take the environment into account in their day-to-day work. Full details of the financial provision in 1992–93 for environmental program-mes are set out in the departmental report published in February.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that, following the Earth summit in Rio, ecological sustainability is now fundamental to all economic policy and that that has implications for economic development in Wales? Does he further recognise that west Wales has considerable potential for green developments, not least in renewable energy? What plans does the hon. Gentleman have for promoting such developments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am reading my notes. What plans does the Minister have for promoting such developments and ensuring that when they occur they will not be an almighty rip-off of the Welsh economy? That has happened many times in Welsh economic life, for example, in opencast coal—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is Question Time; he is making a speech. Will he now come directly to his question, as time is passing?

Mr. Dafis: What plans does the Minister have for developing that green potential—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am much obliged.

Mr. Jones: I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the successful outcome of the Earth summit in Rio. I assure him that the Welsh Office was fully consulted before and during the conference.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the work of conserving the Welsh environment is well under way. As he will note in the departmental report, the allocation to the environmental services programme is planned to be £194.5 million, an increase of £21.3 million. In addition, the WDA is carrying through its environmental improvement programme, which involves an increase of £15 million. Cadw's programme is up by £4 million and the programme for the Countryside Council for Wales is up by £3 million.

Health Service

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reorganisation and development of the health service in Rhondda/Taff-Ely.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: This is principally a matter for Mid Glamorgan health authority at this stage.

Mr. Rogers: I understand that Mid Glamorgan health authority has submitted proposals for some capital development around Ynysymwm and other parts of the Rhondda-Taff-Ely area. While we are waiting for those major capital developments, the fabric of the existing buildings—especially Llwynpia hospital—is rapidly deteriorating. Will the Minister make available some emergency funds, in response to my letter to him, so that my constituents do not have to wait for medical treatment in the most appalling conditions imaginable?

Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall respond fully to his letter. In the interim, I remind him that the funding of £244 million for Mid Glamorgan health authority in the current year is an increase of 7.2 per cent. —well above the rate of inflation. I hope that that health authority will continue with the successful increases that it has been delivering in improved health care. I especially note that the number of in-patients treated is up 14 per cent. and the number of day patients is up by 42 per cent.

Housing Associations

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the findings of the Committee of Public Accounts on the level of monitoring of the working of the financial regime operated by housing associations under the Housing Act 1988.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Detailed monitoring is undertaken by my Department and Housing for Wales on the basis of appropriate data, including that supplied by the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations.

Mr. Smith: What advice would the Minister give those of my constituents who live in substandard housing or who are homeless and who, because they receive low wages, do not qualify for a housing association flat?

Mr. Jones: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will continue the successful work of the past decade, when the number of housing units increased by more than 8 per cent., while the population of

Wales rose by only about 2 per cent. Housing for Wales intends to build 4,000 new homes this year, compared with 3,500 last year, which is a good improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Citizens Charter

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the application of the citizens charter principles to British Rail.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): British Rail has set out the application of the citizens charter in its own passengers charter. The charter commits British Rail to giving passengers the safe, high-quality service that they have the right to expect. Passengers now know what are BR's standards, and which standards are being achieved.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Chancellor recall that the citizens charter White Paper published almost one year ago contained a clear pledge to reform conditions of carriage, which were described as heavily criticised and more than 40 years old? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall also the pledge that those simple, easy-to-understand conditions of carriage would be published last November? A seven-month delay in arriving seems rather long, even by British Rail's standards. What redress will the Government offer?

Mr. Waldegrave: In this matter, it is not entirely British Rail's fault. BR and the Department of Transport have been awaiting the European Commission's work, which appeared to delay matters. My information is that BR will now be able to press on more speedily.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be pleased that any price increases will be linked to the service provided in future? That is important to those who commute to Reading and just beyond it.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a good principle and one which will benefit season ticket holders. The first objective is to ensure that standards that commuters want are met. When they are not, that will be reflected in prices and in compensation to individual holders of season tickets in the preceding year.

Dr. Marek: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy believe that the application of citizens charter principles to British Rail should relate to its commercial aspects, or will an element of service be involved? If the latter, where precisely in British Rail should that element of service be found?

Mr. Waldegrave: The element of service comes in British Rail's managing its business as effectively as possible. As our railways are presently constituted, the Department of Transport is responsible for negotiating that—and under any future privatisation, the regulator would have that role.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Rail has just put on the market a grade 1 listed building at a price virtually half that which British Rail paid for it? At the same time, BR denies that the blight affecting the properties of constituents of mine who live close to that


building has anything to do with BR. How does my right hon. Friend see those two conflicting attitudes fitting in with the citizens charter?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend will have to await my detailed reply. I do not know the details of the case to which he refers, but I will be happy to pursue it.

European Research Council

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he will make to the European Research Council during the United Kingdom presidency.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the presidency, we will prepare the ground for the fourth framework programme, which will define Community research in the years ahead while assessing whether any financing problems that remain from the third framework programme need dealing with. I want to see better management and evaluation of EC programmes. I shall be seeing Vice-President Pandolfi in London tomorrow.

Mr. Ross: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that one of the most important steps that the Council could take would be to support the proposed global climate observation system, which would ensure a sound scientific basis for the adoption of environmental policies?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. He will be well aware of the initiative launched in Rio by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this connection, and I shall draw his remarks to the Commissioner's attention tomorrow.

Mr. Oppenheim: Should we not recommend the ending of all European Community Research funding for fat-cat corporations such as Olivetti, Siemens and Philips. which over the past few years have proved brilliant at lobbying for funding for prestige research products, but less than brilliant when it comes to producing efficient, marketable goods? If they devoted half the effort that they devote to lobbying for protection and research grants to producing such goods, they would be world beaters.

Mr. Waldegrave: We firmly believe that individual corporations and products should not receive research support, either from the Community or from our own domestic programme. We should use the European programme to support generic science and strategic science, which can have a wide range of applications, but we should not be drawn into individual industrial decisions of the kind that my hon. Friend rightly criticised.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the science communities—not only in Britain but in France and Germany—want the European framework research programme to be well supported? Does he propose any steps to bring the national peer groups together, so that, with their pooled wisdom, they can help to improve administration standards in Europe?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there is a role for domestic advice to strengthen the European Community's assessments. At the last Council meeting, I pressed hard for better evaluation of the existing European programmes and received considerable support around the table. We in Britain have a great deal to offer in that direction.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend use the British presidency as an opportunity to keep a beady eye on the expansionist ambitions of President Delors in this regard, as in many others?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, although it should be recognised that Britain receives a good return from European research and development expenditure—a rather better return than under the juste retour formula. None the less, that does not mean that we should not question any unnecessary expansion and ensure that evaluation and assessment of projects are better and tougher than in the past.

Intestacy

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effect of intestacy on Duchy properties.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider introducing legislation to alter the intestacy provisions in the Duchy.

Mr. Waldegrave: The laws on intestacy are no different in the county palatine from those in England and Wales.

Mr. Cohen: Is not the Duchy of Lancaster running a feudal fiefdom, robbing relatives of their inheritance? Why does not the normal law apply, whereby if someone dies without having made a will, his next of kin, rather than the Queen personally, has a claim to his property? For the sake of natural justice, should not repossessions by ancient statute be stopped immediately—or are we to assume that the Duchy is using its policy to satisfy the monarch's private greed?

Madam Speaker: Order. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was perfectly acceptable and in order, but I must tell him that no personal criticism can be made of and individual except by way of a substantive motion. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the second part of his question?

Mr. Cohen: My criticism was of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question was perfectly in order, but factually—you, Madam Speaker, are not responsible for that aspect—it was completely haywire. Opposition Members who take their briefing from the Daily Mirror always come a cropper; I have dealt with one or two in the past. The truth is that the law of intestacy is exactly the same in the Duchy of Lancaster as it is everywhere else: there is no difference in the rights of next of kin. The only difference lies in the fact that, instead of all the money going to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it goes to a charitable fund to benefit the people of Lancashire. Some hon. Members may well support that.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that many of us have no wish to join the republican rat pack led by Rupert Murdoch and Andrew Neil, who unfortunately, is a Scotsman? There is growing and genuine concern that although the civil list provides a very generous income and although the monarch is exempt from tax, the estate goes to the Queen personally when people die intestate in the Duchy of Lancaster and have no


heirs, and not to the Crown, as represented by the Government. Many people believe that that anomaly ought to be dealt with. Will the Chancellor consider introducing legislation to change that procedure, because otherwise it will continue to reflect adversely on the monarch?

Mr. Waldegrave: I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman, whose question is more accurate, was referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who got it all back to front. At least the hon. Gentleman more or less knows the facts. In the following respect, though, he is wrong. Instead of the money going into the Consolidated Fund for general use by the Government, it goes into a benevolent fund which benefits a range of charities—above all, for example, Salford and Lancaster universities, Blackburn cathedral and Broughton Hall disabled ex-service men's home. There are also very small grants, including that to pay for driving lessons for an 18-year-old suffering from spina bifida and a contribution towards a powered wheelchair for a sufferer from muscular dystrophy in Lancashire. Many of us think that the Duchy, through its benevolent fund, does very good work and that it should receive support in the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that not one penny of this money is kept by the Duchy and that it all goes to charitable uses within the Duchy, a fact that all properly informed Lancashire Members have always been well aware of.

Mr. Waldegrave: I did think that it was somewhat rash of these foreigners to interfere in my hon. Friend's area. I thought that she would dispose of them—as she has done. I would correct her, however, on one small point. Part of the money is spent on the administration of the magistracy. If, however, it were not spent in that way, money would have to come out of the self-same public funds into which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) wants all the funds to go, so that it is an entirely circular argument.

Mr. Sumberg: Is it not ironic that, whenever we have Scottish questions, Scottish Members such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) complain about English Members interfering, but now that we are considering Lancashire affairs, the hon. Gentleman is poking his nose into them? Would not the best advice to people in Lancashire who are affected in this way—I speak with no special interest—be to go to see a good lawyer if they have a problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's latter point is sound. Previous Scottish invasions got to Derby, but on those occasions they did not try going through Lancashire.

Academic Research

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what balance he proposes for funding academic research between the research councils and the higher education funding councils.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Government's White Paper of May 1991 set out a new system for funding higher education, including a new balance of funding for academic research between the research councils and the

higher education funding councils. My right hon. Friend will be working closely with his colleagues responsible for the higher education funding councils to ensure that this system is managed effectively to promote good research and to obtain the best possible value for the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister ensure that the Scottish universities receive a fair allocation of funding through their research council? In particular, when allocating funds to the Faraday institutes, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Scotland gets one this time? In particular, will he look carefully at the excellent scheme put forward for a Faraday institute by Strathclyde university and the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride?

Mr. Jackson: The allocation of research funds to Scottish universities is a matter for the Scottish higher education funding council. That, in turn, is a matter for the Departments of Education in terms of the overall allocation of funds for universities. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to their attention.
I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the Faraday institute. This initiative is still in its early days; firm decisions have not been taken. It will be possible to take his point on board.

Charters

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further areas of Government activity are under consideration to be covered by a charter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reviewed the coverage of the citizens charter at his seminar last Friday. We have achieved a great deal, but there is much to do. We intend to publish a courts charter later in the year, and a charter for the users of further and higher education—students and employers—early in 1993.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of charters, by the start of the next academic year parents will have access to comparative tables of performance information, which will greatly assist them in choosing schools for their children?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Under the parents charter, parents will receive annual written reports on their child's progress at school, information on arrangements for discussing that and national curriculum and examination results with teachers and comparative information on the examination results and truancy rates of schools in their area. We are encouraging schools voluntarily to publish information on staying-on rates and school-leaver destinations, which will be required from September 1993.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Chancellor express his concern about the regression in achieving the citizens charter targets for those on health waiting lists and for those who have been waiting more than two years? What role will he take in ensuring that the regression that has occurred since the election is put right?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member doubtless knows, the huge gain in the past year—40,000-plus— dwarves the small set-back last month, which I guess will


be corrected in the months ahead and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on that.

Mr. Adley: May I probe my right hon. Friend's terms of reference for the citizens charter? Am I right in thinking that, initially, he is examining the public service provided through public funding of organisations that have a public obligation? 'That being so, does he agree that he has an obligation to examine actions taken by public bodies such as, shall we say, British Rail, whose reorganisation has taken place over many years? Will he therefore consider BR's reorganisation to see whether he believes that it is in accord with the service that he intends the public to be able to enjoy from British Rail?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, although I would extend the point further: whether the service is provided by private or public money, my office has a role. I am interested in the organisation of British Rail if that helps or hinders it in meeting the objectives that it has agreed.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the citizens charter.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Since the White Paper on the citizens charter was published last July, we have made excellent progress. Nineteen charters have been published, setting out detailed service standards across much of the public sector. We have enacted legislation to bring the powers of regulators up to the levels of the strongest, to give parents more and better information about schools and to give more and better information about the services that councils are providing and at what cost. We have also launched the charter mark scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy referred to the successful seminar that we held at No. 10 Downing street on Friday.

Mr. Barnes: Are the citizens charters supposed to offer openness and scrutiny, in an era in which more and more is being hidden from hon. Members and in which areas of

agency agreements can no longer be questioned? In those circumstances, should we not try to achieve consistency and set up a Select Committee to investigate the work of the Duchy, especially on citizens charters, so that the two bits begin to fit with each other—scrutiny under the citizens charter and scrutiny in the House?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member is absolutely right that the citizens charter is all about openness and clarity. Setting clear targets and monitoring performance against them is one of the critical instruments of the citizens charter. The hon. Gentleman's point about the accountability of agencies to the House is slightly misconceived, because the answers given by chief executives are available to hon. Members. There is continuing discussion about how this should be done most effectively. That is not wholly a matter for the Government, because it is also partly a matter for the House authorities, as is the hon. Gentleman's last point about Select Committees.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the citizens charter is designed to defend the ordinary person against the state or the local authority, or against any of the large organisations that provide services? Is not it a tribute to the citizens charter that the Prime Minister has thought it necessary to set up a special Department to administer the citizens charter to give the ordinary citizen his rights?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The citizens charter is making considerable progress in improving specific commitments to individual people who use services. In British Rail, there is the commitment that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive within 10 minutes of schedule and that 99 per cent. of services should run. For patients, there is the commitment to individual appointment times and maximum waiting times for operations. There is the commitment to a waiting time of 10 minutes in the Employment Service. There is a commitment to a passport waiting time reduction from 24 days to seven days. There is a commitment to timed appointments in the utilities. All those are specific improvements in service which derive from citizens charter initiatives.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security, or from any other Minister, about making a statement on the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation on the Maxwell pension funds? The House needs to see the report because, if it reveals spectacular failure in the process of the regulation of the Maxwell pension fund, not only does that suggest that the Financial Services Act 1986 is deeply flawed—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have received no request today by any Minister to make a statement on that issue or on any other issue.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know that I am not one for causing trouble—not recently, anyway. I should be grateful if you would point out gently to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) that, until such time as there is a change in the constitution of the United Kingdom, it is open to Scottish Members to raise any question at any time.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; and I am sure that he will remember the point in Scottish Question Time.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I will not ask whether you have received a request from a Minister to make a statement, Madam Speaker. In view of what you have just said, clearly you have not.
The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill is now in Committee. Before it meets again tomorrow, will you consider whether it is possible for you to suspend the sittings of the Committee until a Minister has made a statement in the House about the rumours, about the Government's plans to abort the implementation of community care which was planned for next April? Week by week, rumours are coming out of the specialist press and other media that the Government will abort the plans. We know that in July 1990 they aborted the plans for implementation in 1991—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a speech rather than putting a point of order to me. Any suspension of the Committee is up to the Chairman of the Committee. The matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few minutes ago, you made a ruling about saying things about the royal family. It seems strange to me that hon. Members can grovel in the House to the royal family, they can praise them up to the hilt, and they can say anything they like about them in the hope that they will get a knighthood or get into the honours list, yet if hon. Members want to speak the truth about the royal family, they are pulled up. Why cannot I demand that the Queen pays taxes? Why?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in making that demand. I repeat that no criticism of

a personal nature can be made about any individual other than by way of a substantive motion. That is the statement I made.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said that you have received no request that a Minister wants to make a statement today. I would much appreciate some guidance. Can you tell us how it would be possible, at the earliest opportunity, to raise the question of police killings and the suspension of talks in South Africa? Slaughter is taking place there. The British Foreign Secretary has said on many occasions that sanctions are no longer necessary. How can we raise the important issue of what is happening in South Africa, the continuing bloodshed and the suspension of talks which will hopefully lead to majority rule? Foreign Office questions will not be—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have some indication of when Foreign Office questions are to be taken. If the hon. Gentleman uses a little ingenuity, he will make use of the time when the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and later in the week to answer questions.

Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I note your earlier ruling, but surely, after the appalling massacres of black citizens by the South African police, the Government should immediately introduce diplomatic sanctions, including the suspension of South Africa from the Olympic games—

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order should be for me to deal with and should concern Standing Orders and our procedures. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. I cannot respond on matters of policy.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that I misunderstood your ruling in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You said that one should not criticise any individual other than on a motion. I assume that you meant any individual member of the royal family, not any individual. If I wanted to call Rupert Murdoch a pillock, it might not be pleasant, but it could not possibly be out of order.

Madam Speaker: The question that we were discussing concerned the royal family and the reference was to an individual member of the royal family.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you consider the way in which Welsh questions are conducted? A serious problem seems to arise from the fact that, of the 38 Welsh Members of Parliament, only four are from the Conservative party. Out of the 12 Welsh questions that you took today, there were only two opportunities for you to call Labour Members to ask a supplementary question. Will you consider the matter to ascertain whether there can be a fairer representation of Members' views in supplementary questions?

Madam Speaker: I carefully consider questions and how to conduct them before I come into the Chair. I realised on 27 April that I would not make all hon. Members happy all the time.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised his point of order.

Mr. Skinner: The question arises out of—

Madam Speaker: Order. Another hon. Member has a point of order to raise.

Mr. Skinner: I want to know—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has a point of order.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West ( Mr. Banks) and your answer to it, Madam Speaker. You gave a different ruling today from your ruling to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You said that we could criticise individuals as long as they were not members of the royal family. You have reinterpreted the rule. Where does that ruling come from? Is it merely a convention? If so, surely we can challenge it as being out of date. I remind you that you are supposed to represent Back Benchers' interests, and we should have the right to say what we wish.

Madam Speaker: On a substantive motion, we can say what we like. The hon. Gentleman should refer to "Erskine May", but I cannot remember the page. If he comes to see me, I shall turn it up for him.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order arising from what you said about the royal family, Madam Speaker. This is a fair question. How big is the royal family? How many people are we not allowed to criticise—there is no list in "Erskine May"? Is Fergie still in it? Will Diana be in it in another three months?

Madam Speaker: Order. Like some Ministers, I need notice of that question.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for

Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend understands well, as we all do, the difficulties for the Chair when there is an imbalance between the parties in the number of Welsh Members. We are worried that, with such an imbalance, most of the Welsh questions on the Order Paper are inevitably tabled by Labour Members. Therefore, if the Opposition choose not to ask a supplementary question and only the Member who has asked the main question asks a supplementary, by practice other Welsh Members are precluded from having an opportunity to ask supplementaries on questions tabled by Conservative Members.

Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman need not be worried because I move as rapidly as possible down the Order Paper in order to reach as many substantive questions as I can.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c),

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Vienna Document 1992 (Privileges and (Immunities) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Boundary Commissions Bill

Considered in Committee

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the first clause, I have an announcement to make. There is an addition to the selection of amendments. I have added amendment No. 15 to the end of the provisional selection of amendments.

Clause 1

REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I should like to raise one point on clause 1. I know that the Committee will want to debate the first amendment on registration in some detail so I shall make this a short point. Perhaps the Home Secretary could tell us how many extra commissioners he expects to be appointed under the Bill's provisions. Who will they be and when does he expect them to be appointed and in a position to start their work?
The Secretary of State will be aware that on Second Reading it was suggested that commissioners did not sit as often as they might. Given the scope of, for example, clause 3, a great deal of work will have to be carried out between now and the end of 1994. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could tell us briefly when those people are expected to be in post.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The answer to the hon. Gentleman's query is that I do not at present anticipate the appointment of any extra commissioners to deliver the Bill. We believe that the statutory timetable laid down in the Bill can be delivered by the existing commissioners if they are enabled to spend a little more time and have some extra logistical support. That would require about half a million pounds more in public finance each year.
The likelihood is that some of the commissioners will meet rather more frequently than has been their practice in the past, but at this stage I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to appoint any extra commissioners. If there were a change in the membership of any of the boundary commissions, or if new commissioners were appointed, I expect that there would be discussions to ensure that any commissioners appointed were acceptable to all the relevant political parties that were interested.

Mr. John Maxton: I gather that the Secretary of State does not appoint the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Will he co-operate with the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the salaries, pay or fees are equal in Scotland and that there is equality between England and Scotland in that regard? I should not like to see our Scottish lawyers lose out in that matter.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, as Home Secretary, I am responsible only for appointing the Boundary Commissions for Wales and for England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland. I believe that I was correct to say a moment ago that he does not expect to appoint any additional commissioners as a result of the Bill. We have not yet settled the final details of the salaries of commissioners, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind. I do not expect that there will be any great regional or national disparity in payments.

Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State said that he expected there to be some discussion between parties if any additional commissioners were appointed. Will he confirm that that will be so, as I understand that that has happened until now? Will he also confirm that he speaks on behalf of the Government, given that he does not appoint the Scottish commissioners?

Mr. Clarke: Neither the method of appointment of commissioners nor the practice will be changed. They have hitherto been found satisfactory, whichever party has been in power. I say that on behalf of the whole Government, not simply in respect of the boundary commissions for which I am responsible.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned barristers' fees. I am talking about commissioners. The assistant commissioners tend to be banisters and they are usually appointed inquiry by inquiry. The number appointed varies according to the workload at any given time. The commissioners, who hitherto have been unpaid, will in future be paid as a result of the Bill. I expect—although without commitment, because we have not discussed the point in detail yet—that the payment will be the same for all four boundary commissions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

TIME LIMITS FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS

Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
`provided that if the Commission is satisfied that the electorate in any area is to a significant degree different from the population in that area who are qualified to vote then they may delay submitting their report until they are satisfied as to the accuracy of the register.'.
The amendment would allow the boundary commission to delay submitting its report if it was satisfied that the registers on which its calculations were based were inaccurate.
The whole system of the boundary commission's work is based on the electoral registers. If they are wrong in a particular area, that clearly throws the boundary commission's calculations. There is considerable concern about the state of the electoral registers in this country, for both parliamentary and local government elections. Section 8(b)(1) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides that the boundary commissions must have regard to the electorate, which is defined as


the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the accuracy of the present electoral register. We know that it is inaccurate—that has always been the case—and it has been a particular problem in inner city areas, for obvious reasons. The turnover of people tends to be great and people arriving do not fill in the appropriate forms. Indeed, much evidence suggests that many people in different parts of the country simply do not receive the forms. Nor do they have in mind the necessity to get on to the electoral register. Many people assume that they are already on it and do not check to see whether that is so. In the last general election, many of us had the experience of people who thought that they were on the register because they had lived in the area for many years but then found that they were not and were denied the right to vote.
One of the many effects of the poll tax has been to make the electoral register even more inaccurate. It made breaking the law an acceptable act for many people who would never have contemplated such an act in the past. That is one of the legacies with which we must live for many years to come. Some people believe that the census carried out in 1991 will be inaccurate because people were in a state of mind that did not discourage them either from misrepresenting the position to the enumerator or simply not bothering to fill in the form. Indeed, many people have simply disappeared from the poll tax register or the electoral register and will not feature in the census.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the situation that has developed in my constituency? In the late 1980s and 1990, new properties and housing estates were built and there was a general movement of the population, and a substantial number of people did not have the opportunity to register on the electoral roll. That shows that the register to which the boundary commission refers is totally inadequate and out of date. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) bear in mind that parts of the population will be transferred from one district to another due to the new building works?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which concerns me. If new building does not feature on the electoral register, one wonders at the state of registration of residents in old buildings. One would think that the electoral registration officer would notice substantial new building works and would be put on his or her guard to ensure that residents were placed on the electoral register.
However, that is not the first time that I have heard of substantial new building work being carried out and residents in occupation before 10 October of the relevant year finding that they were not on the electoral register. That is an example of how we know that the electoral register is inaccurate, yet we still expect the boundary commission to base its entire calculations on that register. That is one reason why the boundary commission should be given the power to delay submitting its report when it is satisfied that the electoral register for a specific district is inaccurate.
The anomaly arises in some districts where people who are on the poll tax register, having paid their poll tax, do not appear on the electoral register, even though they have

done everything that the Government said they should. They then have no opportunity to vote in the general election in April. In many cases, the poll tax register is potentially more accurate than the electoral register due to the powers to registration officers.
In Lothian region, part of which is covered by my constituency, I do not understand why the registration officer, who is responsible for the poll tax and electoral registration, cannot simply compare the two registers and, if they differ, ask why. It seems odd that someone can be on one register but not on the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) received written answers that tend to confirm the suggestion that electoral registers are inaccurate. Columns 473 to 480 of 11 February 1992 of Hansard show that, when comparing those on the electoral register and the estimated number of those who should be on it, there is a discrepancy in England and Wales of 1.7 million. Those people do not appear on the electoral register, but should do so.
When we consider the figures in greater detail, we see that in Birmingham—which we are told may lose one seat as a result of the review process—31,000 people we might expect to be on the register are not. That factor should worry us as it makes a substantial difference for quota purposes when the commission decides whether Birmingham should lose one seat. Newcastle has a deficiency of 10,000. When I looked at the two London boroughs of Richmond and Kingston upon Thames, I found that the figures were 23,000 and 20,000. Under the rules, the boundary commission cannot generally cross London boroughs, so it could be argued that, in that case, the discrepancies would not make any difference. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), is present. He must ponder why, according to that parliamentary answer, 23,000 people who should have been able to vote for him or the other candidates in the general election were not able to do so. That seems to demonstrate that the electoral register for his constituency is seriously inaccurate; and the same applies to many other parts of the country.
We know that in 1976 the Government thought that the register was 97 per cent. accurate. Yet the Minister of State, on Second Reading, said that it was only 95 per cent. accurate in 1991. I take the figures with a pinch of salt; I do not know how anyone can ever be absolutely sure, given the nature of the statistics.
The electoral registration officer in my area told me that she was satisfied that the register was 95 per cent. accurate. My observations tend to suggest that that is not true. Ministers accept that the register is becoming more inaccurate, and that should worry us all. It may bring short-term benefit to the Government; but in the long term we should all be concerned that people who should be on the register cannot exercise their right to vote.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It would be illuminating to hear the Secretary of State's view on the accuracy of these percentages. When I query them in Birmingham, I am told that they are based on dwellings. The problem is that one can never know how many people live behind those front doors and may be eligible.

Mr. Darling: That is what the poll tax was meant to find out, but we know that it never did reveal how many people lived in a dwelling.
Some of the figures for London make the same point. The Tower Hamlets electorate rose by 6,000 between 1991 and 1992, but the numbers fell in nearby Hackney by 20,000. The number rose by 5,000 in Croydon, but Hillingdon lost 9,000. That is curious. I do not believe that the population is moving around London in those numbers. The figures suggest either that the electoral registration officers are unable to compile an accurate register or that a growing number of people are removing themselves from the register because they perceive that to be in their short-term interest.

Mr. Tony Banks: The figures throw up more and more anomalies. For instance, I noticed that the estimated population in my borough in 1990—I refer to people of 18 years of age or over—was 153,600; yet in 1987 158,000 people voted. In 1992, 157,000 voted. Obviously, we believe in voting early and often in Newham, but what is happening in my borough is the very reverse of what my hon. Friend is describing for other London boroughs.

Mr. Darling: I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
We have the figures for Scotland for each constituency, although we do not have them for England and Wales. It is clear that there is a discrepancy between the number of people whom we believe to live in a constituency and the numbers on the register. There are 141,000 missing persons in all, a great many considering the size of the Scottish electorate.
We now know that the 1976 register was not an entirely satisfactory one on which to base boundaries that did not come into force until 1983. We know that the 1991 register was not accurate even in 1991, so it would be even less accurate in 1992, or, for that matter, in 1995, when, if the Bill is passed, it is likely that the new boundaries will come into force.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the boundary commission to delay submitting a report when it believes that its information is inaccurate. By definition, that will allow those who want to make submissions to the commission to submit evidence suggesting that there is under-registration. If the boundary commission is satisfied that there is under-registration, the electoral register notwithstanding, it is desirable that it should be able to base its findings or recommendations on its belief of the population in an existing or potential constituency.
I understand that it is open to the commission to take into account known planning consents when considering the likely population of a constituency. It should be able to take into consideration under-registration—if that is established. If it does not, it is difficult to see how it can obtemper rule 5 in the 1986 Act—the rule stating that the boundary commission has to try to ensure consistency while allowing it to depart from the quota by 25 per cent. so as to avoid excessive disparities. The question that arises is, disparity from what if the electoral registers are inaccurate? If the object is to produce an accurate register, at least at the start of the life of a constituency—of course, there will be changes later—the Government must recognise that there is no point in proceeding with the Bill if we know that the current registers are inaccurate, in

some cases extremely so. When we start operating on the new constituencies, we will know that, in many respects, they have been drawn up on false information.
4 pm
We know that the number of those eligible to vote in Scotland, England and Wales has increased but that the number on the register has decreased between 1990 and 1991, particularly among first-time voters, and, as I said earlier, that should be of concern to us all. A growing number of young people now believe that there is nothing wrong in failing to temper an injunction to perform their civil duties or in failing to observe the law when it comes to registration and complying with requests to return forms to show that they live at a particular address. The Government may think that there is some advantage to be gained because young people, on the whole, tend not to vote for the Conservative party. However, it cannot be right that a growing number of people believe that they can opt out of civic life.
I remember canvassing a family in my constituency about a year ago which I knew for a fact consisted of the parents and three young adults—their children. When I spoke to the father, he said that just he and his wife lived there. I asked about the three boys and he replied, "They do not live here, if you know what I mean." The boys did live there, but by not appearing on the register the family saved £400 a head in poll tax for three people, which totalled £1,200—a sum that that family could ill afford to pay. The children were not on the register for either electoral purposes or for the poll tax. That is bad for the country.
What should be done? In addition to accepting the amendment, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept some other suggestions. The practice of electoral officers when compiling the registers varies in different parts of the country. In addition, some of them check the accuracy of the registers more than others.
Perhaps, the Government could also pay regard to the small amount that they spend on advertising. For example, in Scotland the boundary commission will start work on a register that will be drawn up in October, but £48,000 only will be spent on advertising. That would preclude any television advertising. In England and Wales, the sum is equally proportionately low. We do not see television advertisements encouraging registration. The House will remember that when many industries were privatised the Government were happy to spend millions of pounds on advertising public assets for sale at knock-down prices. We remember the advertisements on the sale of the gas industry and being told to "Tell Sid". I do not remember that Sid was ever invited to enrol on the electoral register. The Government should pay the same attention and attach the same importance to getting people to register as they apparently did to the sale of public assets to individuals. The Government need to step up their advertising campaign to ensure that people are placed on the register.
We also need to examine the procedures used when canvasses are carried out. We could learn from some of the methods used in the poll tax legislation, which ensured that people were sent notices reminding them again and again that they should be on the register. When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he issued a press release on 5 June which drew attention to the disparities in electorates and he said that "that cannot be fair". It is not


particularly fair, but it is even more unfair if comparisons are made from registers that we know to be inaccurate. If that is unfair, will the Home Secretary tell us how he intends to remove such unfairness? What do the Government propose to do about the problem? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the boundary commission should do about the problem? If he will not accept our amendment, will he say how he expects the commission to pay heed to the fact that, in many cases, the registers on which it bases its calculations are highly inaccurate? We know that the population changes, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that we do not know by how much and to what extent in each constituency.
I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to contribute in what I think will be a fairly short debate, so at this stage I shall conclude by urging the Committee to agree to our amendment, which would be an acceptable way of ensuring that, when the boundaries are drawn up, we can be sure that they contain the number of electors that the boundary commission said that they did and on which it based its calculations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) are worth discussing, but the Committee should consider whether they can profitably be used as an excuse for delaying the progress of the Bill. As I understand it, his argument about people who are not on the register might affect 1,000 or 2,000 people in a constituency. In my constituency, where a fair amount of canvassing was carried on during the general election campaign, we did not find all that many people who were not on the register when they should have been. My guess is that some of the changes in the past few years have occurred because people who are entitled to dual registration have decided to maintain registration in one place rather than another. Those things may vary from one constituency to another.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The problem is that there is bad distribution of those who are not on the register. If 1,000 to 2,000 people in each constituency had not registered, that would have no consequence on the redrawing of boundaries because each constituency would be affected in the same way. However, because lack of registration is so badly distributed, it has a serious affect on the distribution of parliamentary seats.

Mr. Bottomley: That is right, but the purpose of the amendment is to delay the boundary commission report, and I would argue against that. In my constituency of Eltham, there is a proposal to increase the size of a student village from 300 to 2,000 bedrooms, which would have a profound impact on the number of voters. Whether they would all vote Labour or all vote Conservative or, as is more likely, split down the middle is a matter for them. However, that is not a reason for delaying the boundary commission report. It is clear that we want that report to be submitted, considered by the House and brought into effect.
The point that I want to make goes beyond the amendment, so I shall make it only briefly. If parliamentary constituencies are kept within borough boundaries—that applies most of all in London and other large conurbations—problems arise. The quota for a constituency is supposed to be 65,000, but one borough may contain not enough people to entitle it to have three

constituencies while the next-door borough, with 1,000 more residents, has enough for three constituencies. The result would be a difference in the size of constituencies in the two boroughs of 27,000 people per constituency. That swamps the considerations being used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central as arguments for delay. I hope that the House rejects the amendment because it will delay matters, but there are serious points outside the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. Clause 3 covers local government boundaries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not develop this point too far now, because if he does so he will be out of order.

Mr. Bottomley: I was on my ultimate sentence.
The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central are worth discussing outside the Bill, because every hon. Member should be keen to ensure that everyone who should be on the electoral register is on it. However, I reject his contention that this is a ground for delay. The Bill is needed because the discrepancies between sizes of constituencies swamp the effect of his argument.

Mr. Maxton: We have recently been through a general election and, by canvassing in our constituencies, we have an idea of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the register. There are different degrees of accuracy because of, for example, the type of housing or the social mix that is to be found in individual constituencies.
One evening I was canvassing in my constituency with my wife. We were in a high-rise block of flats, working along each corridor. I rang the doorbell of one flat and heard a man's voice ask me from inside what I wanted. I told him that I was the Labour candidate and that I was looking for his vote. In two words, and without opening the door, he told me exactly what to do. I thanked him politely for his interest and moved on to the next door. The door was then flung open and the man charged out of the flat. I did not see it initially but he had a table lamp in his hand. My wife, who was canvassing along the corridor, was convinced that he intended to use it to smash in my head.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is called enlightenment.

Mr. Maxton: It so happened that the man was only about 5 ft 1 in. He decided that discretion was the better part of valour and walked past me. As he did so, he told me—again, in clear and positive language—exactly what I could do with the Labour party, with voting for me and all the rest of it. I then said, "Thank you very much, Sir, but you are not on the register so you cannot vote anyway."
The man whom I encountered was clearly living in the flat but he was not on the register. The register showed that a single woman lived there. It gave me some pleasure to be able to tell him that he could not vote, but the experience demonstrated the inaccuracy of the register. My canvassers returned on many occasions with the same sort of story. They found that two or three people were living in a flat, yet only one person was registered.
Registration is not as accurate as it should be, and we must ask ourselves why that is so. One factor in my constituency is redevelopment. Large parts of a housing scheme are being redeveloped—they are being pulled down. The register showed that 200 or 300 people were living in a series of flats, but when we went to them we found that most of the flats were boarded up and hardly


a soul was living in the development. That is a short-term matter and does not have much to do with the registration officer, who cannot do a great deal about it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, poll tax comes into the issue. It does so for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, some people deliberately avoided going on the register on becoming 18 so that they would not have to pay the poll tax. Others removed themselves from the electoral register to avoid paying the poll tax. Removal is more difficult to achieve, but it is possible to do so by moving house, especially by moving within certain areas.
Secondly, registration for the poll tax has made registration for electoral purposes much more difficult for those who are involved in the process. In the past, when canvassers employed by the registration officer were sent to check the electoral register and to get names on it, there was no great hassle. People were not worried about giving the necessary information to canvassers. With the introduction and implementation of the poll tax, however, many people linked poll tax registration with electoral registration. Many of those who were employed to keep the electoral register up to date found the job extremely difficult. They encountered a great deal of hostility. They were met with abuse on doorsteps. They were told exactly what to do with the registration process.
It has become more difficult for registration officers to find part-time staff to undertake the job. They may be able to find a sufficient number, but whether those whom they employ now are as good as those who were used in the past is questionable.
Canvassing is a well-paid job—I do not know the going rate exactly, but I understand that it is possible to earn quite a lot of money in an hour. We all know how many houses we can canvass in an hour and I think that a canvasser is paid about £1 for each house on which he or she calls. We know that we can call on 20, 25 or 30 houses an hour. On that basis, it is a reasonably well-paid job. Increasingly, however, dangers are attached to it. Some members of the public are extremely hostile and the work becomes increasingly difficult.
I am assured by registration officers in Scotland that their procedure is as foolproof as they can make it. They claim, rightly or wrongly, that they make use of poll tax registers and school leaving information provided by education departments. They also check the housing records of district councils wherever possible. They say that every house receives a visit from a canvasser. I rather doubt that. I am not questioning the quality of the canvassers, but I must question whether every house is visited. If no one is at home on the first call, the canvasser calls a second time. If no one is at home then, a form is put through the door for the person to fill in and send back. That appears to be a good procedure that should work, ensuring that there is a full register in each constituency.
4.15 pm
Canvassers may meet hostility on the first visit. Quite often they are middle-aged, middle-class women. I do not want to be unkind about parts of inner-city areas, but if such a lady went to a close in Glasgow—a block of flats in Glasgow terms—she might find a group of youths with cans of beer in their hands sitting at the bottom of the stairs. Indeed. they might be taking other substances.

There might also be a couple of Alsatian dogs that did not appear to be under anybody's control. That lady might be unlikely to do anything more than the most cursory canvass of that block, and we all understand why.
Such difficulties inevitably lead to inaccuracies in the figures for the number of visits made. They also lead to an imbalance between middle-class and working-class areas. I hate to use the term "working-class areas" because that implies that those living there are in employment, whereas in fact very many of them are unemployed—often long-term unemployed—and have many problems.
That canvasser's second visit would probably be similar to the first—and even putting a form through the door would not receive much response. In my area of Hamilton, if someone is not on the register he would return his form, but that is not necessarily the case in other areas. That creates the sort of inaccuracies that concern us.
Whenever we raised the question of inaccuracies and questioned why people did not register, the Home Secretary said that it was an offence not to register. He is right; it is certainly an offence not to be on the electoral register if one is eligible to be so. Indeed, as part of the procedures for poll tax registration, the Government raised the fine level for non-registration from the minimum to the maximum. I shall be happy to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will tell me how many prosecutions there have been in England and Wales or Scotland for non-registration for electoral purposes. Quite simply, he cannot give me one example because there have not been any. There is no point in saying that it is an offence not to register—and that thereby the register is improved—if registration officers and the Government are not prepared to use their powers to enforce that. Some registration officers in Scotland tried to bring prosecutions, but procurators fiscal declined to pursue them because of insufficient evidence.

Mr. Rooker: I used to think that it was an offence not to register, but in the early hours of one July morning a couple of years ago, a Home Office Minister told me, in this Chamber, that was not so. The offence only arises if an individual is asked by a registration officer to register and refuses to do so. If a registration officer does not know of an individual's existence, he or she is not obliged to register. One is not required voluntarily to register and one does not commit an offence by failing to register voluntarily.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. The offence arises only if, having been asked to register, one refuses. If, however, the procedure which I described is followed, in theory at least one has been asked to register. If one fails to return the form, theoretically one could be liable to prosecution. The problem remains that those who want to bring the prosecution must provide proof that the form was delivered. If a form has not been returned, and if the authorities cannot gain access to a house to determine that a form is on the premises and has been torn up and thrown in the bin, it is impossible to obtain such proof.
The Government ought to do more to ensure accurate registration—particularly at a time when boundaries are being drawn on the basis of an electoral register that many of us believe is not as accurate as it should be.

Mr. David Winnick: When was the last time that my hon. Friend heard any Minister express


concern at the Dispatch Box at the absence from the electoral register of the names of individuals who should be on it?

Mr. Maxton: I cannot recall that ever happening, but perhaps we will hear such an expression of regret from the right hon. and learned Gentleman today.
People have a democratic right to vote, and they ought to be able to do so. Often, inaccuracies arise by accident. An 18-year-old can grow up to be a 22-year-old without his or her name ever appearing on the electoral register—never having been asked to register. The accuracy of the register is important when boundary commissioners are taking decisions about the number of seats that should exist in particular areas.
Glasgow may lose more seats than it ought if the register is as inaccurate as I and others believe. The Government should make every effort to ensure that cities such as Glasgow and Birmingham have accurate registers. If there is a genuine fall in population, fair enough; but seats should not be lost because of inaccurate registers.

Mr. Barnes: According to Glasgow's estimated population for 1990–91, the average electoral register in that city is 2,500 short. That adds up to a serious overall shortfall.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right, and that means that across Glasgow about 30,000 people are not on registers who ought to be on them. That could be the difference between Glasgow having not 11 seats but nine or 10. Those 30,000 people could make all the difference.
Registration officers spend a lot of money on canvassers, but the Government are not prepared to spend money on television advertising in particular—as they have in respect of a range of other issues—to ensure the accuracy of electoral registers.
There is a question mark over one or two other points as well. The electoral register must be drawn up in the latter part of the year before that in which the May local elections take place and published in February. The timing may be fair enough as far as canvassing is concerned, but it is less fair on the elector. The draft registers are published at the end of November, after which the elector has only two weeks of some of the year's worst weather in which to check that his name has been included. After that, the register is finalised. I feel that the time of year is wrong and also that a fortnight is not long enough.
The Government were happy to provide—indeed, they insisted on legislating—for every poll tax payer to receive in the post, as the poll tax register was drawn up, a notice informing him that he had been included on the register and telling him where he could appeal against or alter the registration if he wished to do so. Why cannot the same procedure apply to electoral registration? Why cannot the registration officer, once the draft register has been prepared, send each household—or each individual within a household—notice that the person or persons concerned will appear on the register? The poll tax register included a form to be filled in if there were any new names to be added. Why should not the same be done in this instance? That might not ensure a universal return, but at least people would know whether they were on the register and what to do if they were not.
The Home Secretary may ask, "What about the cost?" The Government were happy to bear the cost in relation to poll tax registration; in any event, would the cost be so

enormous? It would be a matter of sending a single letter. There would, of course, be printing and other costs, but in an area such as Strathclyde region the cost would probably be no more than £500,000 if the letter were sent to each individual, and half that if it were sent to each household. Is £250,000 too high a price to pay for ensuring that democratic rights are protected? That is what we are talking about—people's democratic right to take part in the processes of both local and central government and to have their entitlement sustained by a proper electoral registration system.
I am delighted to support the amendment, and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider my points.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: This debate highlights the narrowness of the issues covered in the Bill. The mischief of an inaccurate and incomplete register does not sit easily with the other mischief that the Bill seeks to address—the distortions that occur when there is too much delay between the boundary commission's reports.
The amendment is valuable, in that it draws attention to what I believe concerns more electors than perhaps any other single matter. What was said during the general election campaign made that very clear to me. Nothing gave rise to greater anger in my constituency than the complete exclusion from the electoral register of a fairly recently constructed housing estate. Strong representa-tions were made about it. I doubt, however, whether such an issue could usefully be taken into consideration by a boundary commission. It is a local administration issue.
4.30 pm
None the less, the Home Secretary has done democracy a great disservice by confining so tightly the long title of the Bill as to make it necessary to link the matter now under consideration with the duties of the boundary commission. It is not appropriate to take such a narrowly partisan view of the reform of our electoral law that it forces the debate into these unnatural channels, which inevitably it has to do if the issue of the inaccuracy of the register is to be raised at all. It would have been more sensible for the Home Secretary to have allowed the debate about the unsatisfactory nature of our electoral law to roam a good deal more freely than appears to be his intention. He may choose to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to answer the questions that have been raised about the unsatisfactory state of the register and not simply to explain to us that it would be inappropriate for the boundary commission to hold up its reports, as proposed in the amendment. He may also choose to explain what he proposes to do to correct the mischief.
It must be said, even if only en passant, that the message from Christopher Chataway's commission for the Hansard Society—that an electoral commission, with more wide-ranging powers than the boundary commission but to include the powers of the boundary commission —would be a better way to deal both with the question of the timeliness of reports and with the question that is linked with this amendment: the inadequacy of the registration process.
If the boundary commission were to enjoy the power proposed by the amendment, it is doubtful whether the mischief that it seeks ostensibly to address would be tackled effectively. The speeches that have already been made clearly suggest, both by their examples and by their


general proposition, that those who are not on the register are not, in many cases, on the register because they do not wish to be on it. We could not sustain for very long the proposition that, because of an extraneous law—the poll tax—a substantial number of people do not wish to be on the electoral register, boundary reviews should be held up.
With the flux of time and the change in local government finance arrangements, that may prove to be a transient problem. I certainly hope so. I doubt whether we should embrace the amendment and the purposes towards which it is ostensibly directed, though I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for drawing attention to an area of electoral law and electoral administration where speedy intervention by the Government is needed.

Mr. Winnick: I suggested on Second Reading that it would be preferable to have an overview debate on electoral matters before debating a Bill of this nature. I said, rather briefly, that a number of factors should be debated, especially after a general election, before considering this hastily moved Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has done valuable work in spotlighting, almost from the beginning of the poll tax controversy, the number of people who were likely to be left off the register, and in fact have been. Tribute should be paid to him, because in doing so he has done a service not only to his party but to democracy.
One of the worrying features is the number of electors who are missing from the register. I do not believe that the Government are genuinely concerned about the problem —I know that this may be dismissed as a cynical view and the Home Secretary is muttering, but I believe that I am accurate—because, in the main, they work on the assumption that if such people were on the register and bothered to vote they would be more likely to vote Labour than Tory. That may be entirely wrong, but that is the assumption in the minds of Ministers.
From the outset, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East but other Labour Members pointed out that one of the results of the poll tax, which destroyed Mrs. Thatcher, would be that many people would believe that they could avoid paying a tax that they regarded as unjust, penal and could not afford by staying off the electoral register. No matter how often one emphasised the fact that two registers were kept, the end result was what we feared.
If the Government oppose the amendment—there is little doubt that they will—the boundary commissioners will have no authority to take this important point into consideration. My hon. Friends have already spoken of the many people who are not on the register. Therefore, in carrying out their tasks, the boundary commissioners will make a faulty assessment from faulty figures. That is why I, unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), believe that the amendment is important.
How can accurate decisions be made about boundary changes if data are far from accurate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, in a number of constituencies, certainly in inner-city areas, not a few but many people are missing from the register. Inevitably, there have always been some people who should have been on the register but were not, but the situation today is significantly different and far more

alarming, unless one takes the view that it does not matter —that if people do not want to be on, so be it. That is not my view or that of Labour Members.
Press reports two or three days after polling day—I know that the Home Secretary will consider this to be another cynical view, but I believe it is accurate—showed that the Government are concerned about getting as much advantage out of boundary changes as possible. Why do we constantly read in the press that the Government are working on the basis that by the time of the next election there will be 10 or 20 seats to their advantage? On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the Government's optimism may be misplaced. I hope that it is, but that is not their thinking and we would not be debating the Bill now if they were not of that view.
I emphasise, as I did on Second Reading, that I do not believe that boundary changes should not be made. That would be a nonsensical point of view. I am not of course suggesting that once boundaries have come into being, they should never be reviewed. Of course they should be reviewed on a regular basis; that is right and proper. However, the haste of the Bill and the trailing of it just two or three days after the election on 9 April makes one suspicious about the Government's aims.
I believe that one of the Government's objectives is the reduction of inner-city constituencies and the creation of newer constituencies elsewhere, which would be to their advantage. One of the most important points in all this is the need for impartiality. In the existing system or in any other electoral system, such as the one favoured by the Liberal Democrats and by some others, there must be a review of boundaries. However, impartiality is also required. If that impartiality is broken down, mainly by the way in which the Government act, there will inevitably be much concern and suspicion, and a rather cynical view of what the Government are concerned about. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said last week, the Government did not consult the Opposition on the Bill, which was previously normal practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke about the difficulties of getting people on to the register. Why could the Government spend so much money on trying to ensure that people overseas who, in many cases, left the country many years ago and who had no remaining links with Britain were on the electoral register?

Mr. Maxton: I wonder how much it cost.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend asks how much it cost. One should compare that effort with the lack of concern, attention, advertising and expenditure directed to getting people who actually live in Britain on to the electoral register. People may say that I am being cynical, that I am wrong to accuse the Government of ulterior motives because they are wholly innocent and that this is, yet again, just a cynical Labour view. Inevitably, the question arises why the Government have been so concerned about overseas voters. Is it because they have said to themselves, "How terrible it is that these people who, in many cases, have broken all links with this country, have been away a long time and have no intention of returning are not on the register. It is vital for British democracy that they record their votes in a United Kingdom election"? That could be the Government's view.
Alternatively, the Government may have worked on the assumption in the previous Parliament that the majority of such people, if they bothered to vote—I do not know how successful the Government were—would vote Tory rather than Labour. If one adopts a more impartial view, the Government should try their utmost to ensure that people living in Britain who are not on the register are brought on to the register.
I hope that the Home Secretary will refrain for a moment from talking to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I am sure that he is interested in what his colleague is saying and that it is of the greatest national importance.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): We are discussing the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Winnick: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education, who has just walked in, is showing such interest in these matters. It is always interesting to see. Perhaps other members of the Cabinet will soon walk in and instead of gossiping—[Interruption.] I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes. He continues to make his remarks from a sedentary position. I hope that the Home Secretary can advise me. If the amendment is opposed—[Interruption.] The mutterings of the Secretary of State for Education may be heard by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot hear them. If he speaks a little louder, I might.

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members speaking in Committee should address their remarks to me.

Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State for Education may wish to address his remarks to you, Mr. Morris. I am sure that that would be of some interest. I am not sure how we shall be able to continue the debate without the presence of the Secretary of State for Education, but we will try our utmost.
I want to ask the Home Secretary an important question. If constituencies are considered to be too few in number, if the boundary commissioners come to the view that certain constituencies, because of numbers, are to be abolished and if the figures on which the boundary commissioners have worked have not been accurate, especially in inner-city areas where significant numbers of people have been missing, what purpose will be served by making recommendations that are based on faulty data? If the amendment does not meet the Home Secretary's approval, I hope that he will table a Government amendment before the Bill makes further progress to meet the point that I and my hon. Friends are trying to make.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East on Second Reading—he will correct me if I am wrong—that one way to overcome some of the difficulties of getting people on to the electoral register would be to have an electoral number.

Mr. Barnes: It was not me.

Mr. Winnick: I stand corrected. The idea was suggested by one of my hon. Friends. I should have thought that, just as one has a national health service number and other numbers, one could have a permanent number once one was eligible to vote. As long as it was clearly understood that people vote once, it would be a possibility. There would not then be the problems, which my hon. Friend the

Member for Cathcart mentioned, of people being afraid of intimidation or of people staying off the register because of the poll tax. I may be putting forward a suggestion that is not of my making, but I am willing to pick up suggestions of value. The suggestion of an electoral number should not be dismissed out of hand.
If we are really concerned about the democratic and electoral process and if we want to encourage people to vote, we should be worried by the fact that at least 25 per cent. of the electorate never vote in general elections. I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees that, in local elections, it is sometimes difficult to persuade to vote more than one third of those eligible to vote. That is alarming.
It is sometimes said that whatever happens in the United States is repeated in this country in due course. I hope that that does not always happen in view of the crime figures. In the 1988 presidential election there fewer than 50 per cent. of the people voted. We do not know what will happen in November this year. It would be alarming if that figure or any figure near it were repeated in the United Kingdom.
Obviously we want people to vote for our own party, but above all we want people to vote and we want people to engage in the electoral process. In some constituencies and, unfortunately, in some inner-city areas, the number who vote in a general election is less than 60 per cent. or 62 per cent. That too is alarming. There is an under-class who take the least interest in public affairs and who feel very alienated from the electoral process. I cannot go into all the reasons for that because you would soon call me to order if I did, Mr. Morris. The step of being on the register in the first place would be a start in encouraging such people to vote.
I urgently suggest that the Home Secretary should accept the amendment or that he should table a Government amendment so that when the boundary commissioners decide on their recommendations the House will at least have confidence that those recommendations are based on accurate figures.

Mr. Barnes: I welcome the fact that the amendment distinguishes between those people qualified to register and vote and those people on the electoral register. There is considerable disparity between the number of people on the register and the number entitled to be there, as many hon. Members have argued.
I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will accept that, in supporting the amendment, I am not supporting a device to delay implementation of the legislation. I have argued for four years in the House that the poll tax would cause serious problems for electoral registration, and the evidence has proved that to be the case.
I was not the first Member of Parliament to raise the problem of the poll tax. As far as I can judge from reading Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned it in the Committee that dealt with the poll tax legislation.

Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to question my hon. Friend's historical accuracy, but the Scottish poll tax Bill was pre-1987 and I can assure him that I and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the problem, as did other members of that Committee.

Mr. Barnes: I am sure that that is the case. I am referring only to legislation affecting England and Wales which was passed during my time in the House.
I am not even asking for an accurate register; I am asking that the register of people entitled to vote within each area should be as accurate as possible. It would be difficult to get accurate registers before redistribution as so much needs to be done to correct them: we must ensure that people who are on the register but are no longer entitled to be are removed and that other people who are entitled to vote are added. There is no reason why we should not be able to work out as accurately as possible how many people should be on the register.
Many hon. Members have quoted the latest 1991 statistics. The results are divided into constituencies in Scotland and into district areas in England and Wales. The Minister must tell us why we cannot act on those figures, rather than figures for electoral registration, given the serious problems affecting them.
I would welcome some statement on Home Office moves to ensure that electoral registration is improved, so that when this legislation affects future boundary reviews an accurate register will be used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that Ministers had never mentioned the problems affecting electoral registration, but there have been several limited comments on the subject. I shall quote the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd)—when he summed up the debate on Second Reading, saying:
Rather more insistently, many Labour Members … complained that the 1991 register, which is the reference point for the English, Scottish and Welsh boundary commissions, is insufficiently accurate to form an acceptable base for redistribution. I have some sympathy with that view. Just as I believe that constituency boundaries should not be allowed to become too out of date, so I believe that registers should be as up to date and as complete as possible."—[Official Report 15 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 742.]

Mr. Winnick: I heard the Minister say that, but it is the least that he could have said. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the Minister acknowledges the problem, and we shall hear what the Home Secretary has to say about it later, but I am not aware that Ministers ever drew attention to it on their own initiative. The Minister was merely saying the least that could be said in the circumstances, in reply to Opposition Members.

Mr. Barnes: Even the expression of sympathy with "that view" is important. The logic of having sympathy with it should be that we shall receive some sign of what will be done to correct the manifest abuses in electoral registration. The Minister's statement was welcome, but we must prod the Secretary of State to tell us what the Home Office will do to put registers right.
Reference has been made to parliamentary answers given by the Scottish Office and the Department of Health to a question about the state of the electoral register. In a sense, every hon. Member represents a sort of rotten borough, because hosts of electors are missing from the register. In areas where Members have healthy majorities, which are far larger than the number of electors missing, it is not a serious matter. However, other Members have narrow majorities—especially Conservatives. The Government hold 22 seats with a majority of 1,000 or less, and in each of those seats well over 1,000 people are missing from the electoral register. If they are missing

because of the poll tax and are an anti-Tory cohort, those hon. Members might depend on the poll tax to win their seats.
The written answer providing information on registra-tion in Scotland was given on 6 February 1992 in columns 293 to 296 of Hansard. It shows that there are 140,000 fewer people on the electoral registers than the estimated population taken at mid-1990 figures. The electoral registration figures are for 1991 and voters had to register by October 1990. Those June and October 1990 figures are the latest available. Neither the Scottish Office nor the Home Office will produce later figures because they are waiting to process the census figures and to relate them to electoral figures.
Unfortunately, everyone is aware that there were problems with the census, which was also affected by the poll tax. Legislation was used to try to inform people that there was no means by which census information could be used for poll tax purposes—whether that was generally believed is another matter.
The figures for Scotland, produced in the parliamentary answer, are for district council areas and for the 72 parliamentary seats there. In each constituency there is a shortfall in the number of electors compared with the estimated population able to vote. In 14 seats, the discrepancy is more than 2,700 and it rises to almost 5,000 in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The discrepancies are maldistributed and 76,000—more than half—of the missing electors are in the Strathclyde region, although it does not contain half the electors in Scotland. As I said in an earlier intervention, the position in Glasgow is worrying. In each of the 11 seats, between 2,300 and 2,700 people are missing.
Unfortunately, the details are not so complete for England and Wales. The figures given on 11 February 1992 in Hansard are for only metropolitan districts and district council areas and are bundled together in shire counties. However, they show that in England 1,750,000 people were missing overall. Within each metropolitan district and shire county there is a shortfall, but it is a maldistributed shortfall.
5 pm
In London there are 10 boroughs in which more than 20,000 people were missing off the registers at the time for which the figures were given, even though efforts were made in certain parts of London to improve registration for the general election. However, we do not have comparative population figures for the time of the general election which we can use. The figures for 1991 will be used for the purposes of the Bill. The quota will be worked out on the basis of figures for 21 February 1991.
We have a problem in working out the quota of seats on the basis of which the various county areas will be divided. In later investigations it might be possible to talk about more recent electoral figures and make improvements so that the details can be adjusted. But the overall quota will be determined on the basis of the 1991 figures.
The problem is of some importance in Derbyshire where the quota that has been worked out is 10.49 seats. So only a slight adjustment, depending on what happens in the rest of the country, could bring the quota up to 11. However, once the review process has started, it will be too late because the quota will already have been determined, whatever people may argue about the shortfall in their area. The shortfall will help only to determine some detail


about where the boundaries should be, rather than determining the number of seats that Derbyshire should have.
In Greater London, 482,000 people are missing from the electoral register. Areas such as Barnet, Camden, Ealing and Westminster all have more than 30,000 people missing. There is a serious maldistribution of the shortfall in England and Wales. In some areas of Wales such as Gwent, there seems to be no serious problem; only about 21,000 people are missing overall. But other areas, such as Greater Manchester, have 104,000 people missing and there is a serious problem.
We need to ensure that we act on the most accurate figures possible, both to determine the quota and to decide how areas should be divided. That problem must be handled with some urgency because there is some urgency about redistributing the seats. We cannot continue to have unequal electoral districts. Indeed, the Labour movement is greatly attached to equal electoral districts. Equal electoral districts were one of the six points of the charter which our forebears in the Chartist movement proposed —often with much opposition from Tory Members of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he put his comments in the context of paragraph 4(1)(ii) of the schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which deals with the London boundaries? I believe that I am right in saying that a borough with only one Member of Parliament could have an electorate of between 36,000 and 104,000, a borough with two Members of Parliament could have an electorate of between 53,000 and 87,000 and a borough with three Members of Parliament could have an electorate of between 59,000 and 81,000. That elasticity seems rather greater than the discrepancies to which the hon. Gentleman properly refers.

Mr. Barnes: Of course, there are other issues to be raised than the one which I am addressing. The notion that in some cases it should be possible to cut across London borough boundaries to achieve equal electoral districts is important. Undoubtedly, other hon. Members will make that case. But I am dealing with an overall problem in England, Scotland and Wales. I have not raised the different quota sizes for Scotland, Wales and England. Arguments could be made about that. It could be argued that smaller nations should have extra consideration. But even the quota sizes for Scotland and Wales under the current rules are affected by the general difficulty with electoral registration.

Mr. Maclennan: Would it be practical and possible to tackle the problems, to which the hon. Gentleman properly draws attention, within a time scale that allows a new electoral register to be drawn up before the anticipated date of the next general election, even if the Government's objections to the manner that the amendment proposes are too strong to allow the Committee to accept the amendment?

Mr. Barnes: It is possible to move ahead quickly on electoral registration reform. Indeed, I have a private Member's Bill which will come before the House on 12 February to tackle the matter. I have had consulations with the Home Office about it. Even if the Home Office wanted to change some of the details, if it agreed with

some of the principles behind the Bill, the Bill could be a convenient vehicle for reform. But 12 February is still a long way away.
Discussions are being held between the political parties, other organisations and the Home Office about what happened at the last general election, including what happened with electoral registration. Investigations have been undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which may allow more modern comparisons to be made. There is no reason why the Government could not take that information into account quickly and introduce the appropriate legislation instead of the measure before us now. The Bill could also be placed on hold until the electoral registration provisions have been corrected.
If the Government do not offer appropriate legislation and I have to go ahead with my private Member's Bill on 12 February to press the matter, it may still be possible to make adjustments to the Bill which we are considering which would improve the position. One possible adjustment is amendment No. 1. Alternatively, the Home Office could state that it would take into account the estimated population figures or that it would examine the figures closely to discover how accurate they are. It could make use of those more accurate figures and provide estimated population figures for not only Scottish but English and Welsh constituencies so that we could act on them.
There is no problem with electoral registration figures in Northern Ireland, where the estimated population figures are adhered to. One reason why there is not a problem in Northern Ireland is that the poll tax was never introduced there and did not mess up the register. Northern Ireland still has the problem of countervailing sets of errors in the register which exaggerate the numbers in some places and exclude people elsewhere. That problem has existed for a considerable time. It was referred to in an OPCS report in 1981.
Let us point out the problem created by the poll tax on the basis of the empirical evidence. On page 2 of Population Trends of summer 1991, the OPCS published a table showing that in 1987 the number of people on the electoral register was 99.2 per cent. of the estimated population. The figures for the years until 1981, plus 1976, were about the same. They sometimes slipped to as low as 98.4 or rose as high as 99.3 per cent., but were usually about 99 per cent. After 1987, the percentage began to drop year by year and, by 1991, it was 96.5—a fall of 2.7 per cent. since 1987.
Furthermore, the "attainers" group—those registering for the first time—cannot be found on previous registers. Those wishing to duck electoral registration to avoid payment of the poll tax were likely to be younger people. The figure for that category shows a fall of 4.7 per cent. The same does not apply to Northern Ireland, where the figure for that category has been increasing. In England and Scotland, the number registering was never so high compared with the estimated population. The explanation may be that there were more overseas visitors, a factor that must be taken into acount.
In 1987, the figure was 97.4 per cent., which is similar to the figure for previous years. After 1987, the figure starts to fall until it reaches 95.5 per cent.—the figure mentioned by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. That is a fall of 1.9 per cent. The figure for attainers shows a fall of more than 6 per cent., which shows that a serious problem must be tackled. It is not simply a slight statistical aberration


but fits in with a host of information from electoral returning officers on how figures should be collected and how those should relate to poll tax registration in different areas. It also relates to the fact that Bills under discussion in the House had begun to interlink the poll tax and the electoral register. For example, a small Bill on Caldy island had only two clauses: one about poll tax registration and the other about electoral registration. That interconnection has always existed.
The electoral register's problems are not caused entirely by the poll tax. The poll tax has revealed serious difficulties and is itself a problem that needs to be tackled. But other problems are caused by growing numbers of homeless people, who feel that they do not belong to the system, and people who move around in search of employment. The latter are encouraged to get on their bikes to look for employment and, when they do so, they frequently change accommodation and are never firmly placed on a register. All those factors have added to the long backlog of what was already wrong with electoral registration. Those problems have often been hidden from view by other countervailing problems.
Let us show that we are trying to get the register right and, in the process, press forward to achieve equal electoral districts. Ideally, the right order would be to get the registers right first and then deal with the areas. However, if the Government are not willing to move in that way, they must say what they will do to overcome the current serious problem. They must obtain a decent set of rough and ready figures to show what electoral registration should be, so that the boundaries can fit in with those.
I hope that, even if we push the matter to a vote and the Government pull out their forces and make us lose, the Minister will promise to act on electoral registration and rectify the mess that existed at the last general election. There was little wonder that the pollsters got it wrong, because pollsters never take account of whether they are investigating the right people. Before the general election, pollsters were investigating those who could be on the electoral register rather than those who were actually on it, which is what gave the different result revealed in the ballot box.

Mr. Rooker: The House of Commons does not deal with this important subject often enough. From my experience of the past two or three years, I believe that Home Office Ministers do not take electoral registration or administration matters anywhere near seriously enough to be proactive about them.
Evidence shows that, by and large, the British do not like registering. It is probably anathema to them in the same way as are identity cards. Press reports in the past couple of weeks show that people in Cornwall do not even like registering the dead, as a result of which Tory Members have been hiring taxis and scurrying around delivering proxy votes for the dead for Tory candidates. That is another twist to the problem of lack of registration. Similar problems occurred at the Plymouth by-election earlier this year. It seems that problems relating to registration in the west country need to be solved.
I wish to develop some points that I made in the early hours of the morning on 23 July 1990. I do not wish to repeat my speech, but I hope that the Home Secretary will at least say what the Government are doing about the areas where they know defects in electoral registration exist. I remind him that, two years ago, in the July Consolidated Fund debate, I gave examples of those known defects. That was just after the poll tax came into force and just before registration, in September 1990, for the key register of February 1991.
Senior officials and members of local government do not take electoral registration as seriously as they should. Electoral registration officers are starved of resources, and the "go-getters" in local government are not interested in the matter. As a result, it becomes a backwater. Without electoral registration officers, who are the bedrock of democracy—our democracy and its operation depend on their work—the whole system would be a farce. They do not receive sufficient political backing.
From Ministers and senior officers in local government downwards, there is an enormous amount of ignorance about the registration process and that should be dealt with. I accept that it is an administrative exercise, but it is also a political exercise. There were fewer electoral registration officers in the quill pen age than there were two years ago. I had the privilege of addressing the last two annual conferences of the electoral registration officers and I know that they are pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House—I once attended the conference with a Conservative Member—take an interest in the mechanics, minutiae and technical aspects of registration.
Ultimately, however, if a person's name is not on the list, he or she cannot vote. If the name is not on the register, his or her town, ward or constituency may be deprived of proper and fair representation. It matters not whether someone votes; if he or she does not appear on the list of voters, when redistribution takes place a seat may be taken away from the town or borough.
Home Office research has identified another deficiency. It is a crying shame that the Home Office funds research on the effectiveness or otherwise of registration but never presents the House with proposals to solve the problems. It has issued the odd piece of guidance, but that is not good enough.
Anyone representing a district in which there are houses in multiple occupation will know that shared letterboxes prove disastrous for electoral registration; both research and practical experience show that. Occupants of dwellings that have been converted into flats and bedsits are more likely to be left off the register than those of other dwellings. Lodgers stand a good chance of being left off the register.
Several hon. Friends have referred to attainers, people over 16. Without wishing to be disrespectful, may I say that they are ignorant of the fact that even if they are only 16 years eight months this October they should be entered on the register because they will be 18 before February 1994. The average family, with a mother, father and a child who is not yet 18, or even 17, probably will not realise that the youngster's name should be on the list.
Well-substantiated research has shown that tenants of privately rented accommodation are more likely to be missed off the electoral register than owner-occupiers and local authority tenants. There is plenty of research to show that unemployed members of households are more likely to be missed off the register than people in work.
We all fight against public apathy. I found that 50 paid-up members of my constituency Labour party were not even on the electoral register two years ago—a not uncommon phenomenon in inner-city constituencies.
I mentioned that young voters of 18 constituted a category that presented problems, but independent studies funded by the Home Office have shown that up to 30 per cent. of 17 to 19-year-olds are missed off the register. A high proportion of people of 20 to 29 years of age are also easily missed off the register. Those problem sectors mean that the names of about 7 per cent.—at any one time, 2 million people—are missing from the register. That is an enormous number, and we must take action.
I shall repeat two important issues which I have raised before as no action has been taken on them: we must have political and administration action. I visited Scotland to listen to the assessor—the director of finance—for the Lothian region in the early months of 1988, when the poll tax for England was being debated in the House. I took it upon myself to listen to what the experts in Scotland were saying as legislation was introduced there first. The dual functions of electoral registration officer and assessor are embodied in the same person. It was explained to me that it was the norm in Scotland for the assessor, in his role as electoral registration officer, to contact secondary schools automatically. He did not merely issue a grubby notice to be stuck on the school board to warn 16-year-olds to register but targeted the pupils and obtained dates of birth.
I see nothing wrong with electoral registration officers being proactive and obtaining dates of birth from schools and local education authorities so that when it is crucial for the names of those young people to appear on the register—as young as 16 years eight months—they receive a personal letter from the electoral registration officer inviting them to register. It should not be left to the young people to register voluntarily.
Such a system has since been tried in my city, where I explained what was happening in Scotland and said that if it was good enough for Edinburgh it was good enough for Birmingham. The electoral registration officer in Birmingham met with some success and was welcomed by some of the head teachers, but some did not even bother to respond to his inquiry. That matter will be pursued. The electoral registration officers must be proactive and more work must be done. I am talking not about any breach of privacy but about obtaining dates of birth so that people can be warned in time to register.
We must obtain more information about multiple-occupation dwellings. That information is also needed for other reasons such as public health, housing policy and fire prevention. Details of bed-and-breakfast accommodation can be found from housing benefit records and can be easily obtained by electoral registration officers. That information should be used.
Hostels and refuges are used mainly, although not entirely, by women and children who have suffered domestic violence. I hope that the Home Secretary is aware of the problem. Under the poll tax legislation, anonymous registration is possible. Most, but not all, victims of domestic violence are female. It is possible for them to be registered anonymously. They pay their poll tax, but their names are not public knowledge so that they cannot be tracked down by a violent spouse, boyfriend or partner. There is no such procedure in the electoral registration legislation.
I have talked to electoral registration officers who say that they know where the refuges are. Such places do not have boards outside, but the officers know the addresses of the establishments. There should be a way to ensure that those people gaining shelter from violence, whether in local authority or voluntary sector homes—which have led the field in recent years—are not deprived of their right to vote simply because of the fear of having their name on the electoral register. Obviously, they cannot use the location from which they have sought refuge as the local polling station would be known by the violent partner. I know that there would be dangers in anonymous registration, but EROs say that it would be possible to introduce a registration procedure to ensure that people sheltering from violence do not lose their right to vote. There is no such provision under present electoral law.
People who genuinely have no fixed abode—a fairground worker or a tramp who uses the same ditch on the night of October each year—can register from that locality. The Greenham women were registered from the common. If such people can register, those in refuges should be able to do so. People do not have to live in bricks and mortar to register; they merely have to be in the same place at the same time of year, whether that be a fairground or a ditch. It is important that peripatetic citizens have the right to vote. We should have a mechanism to deal with cardboard city and those sheltering from violence.
I have said nothing tonight that I did not say two years ago, but the Home Office appeared to take no action following that July 1990 debate—the fact that it took place early in the morning is no excuse.
There was an action plan. The Minister of State, who wound up the Second Reading debate last week, said a word or two about it. Nevertheless, these are the real reasons why the accuracy of the register is at risk. The poll tax was certainly an added burden. Some people voluntarily absented themselves for all the wrong reasons. My party never encouraged them not to register, but they took themselves off.
5.30 pm
The redistribution that has become necessary since 1976 shows that the number of people Registered to vote has increased by a net 2.4 million, but the fact that they all live in the English shires worries me. Those shires will gain 20 seats at the expense of the cities. I know that, for reasons of housing and social policy, the density of population in our cities was always likely to decrease, but it is remarkable that the increase in the shires should be so large—it will result in a considerable redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.
The recent census was itself affected by the poll tax, but it tells us enough to know that the electoral register is inaccurate to a degree that should concern the commissioners. They ought to be able to take account of those factors.
Redistribution has to take place and the sooner we all know how seats are to be redistributed, the better. In general terms we know that the register is inaccurate and in detailed terms we know why—yet the Home Office has initiated no programme of action. The former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), now vice-chairman of the Conservative party, has been hovering around the Chamber today. Last year in September, I tried to


persuade her to place some advertising in respect of absent voters. I said that that could make the Home Office popular—as opposed to drugs, prisons and inner cities. The issue was about democracy and giving people the right to vote, and it could make Home Office Ministers voter-friendly. I saw that I had struck gold with her—

Mr. Tony Banks: Which is why they moved her.

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Lady was standing for a marginal seat, so I knew that I was striking home.
Although the Minister's face began to glow, the faces of her civil servants fell. I offered her a programme of action; I offered to share a platform with her; I even offered her a quote in a joint press release, showing that this was not a partisan issue. The mechanism whereby we are elected must, after all, be absolutely clean, open and above board. We are the only people who can ensure that it is.
The civil servants talked of the money that this would cost. It is, after all, only a few thousand pounds—chicken feed. We could lose the required money just adding up the third column of decimal places in the public expenditure accounts. It is nothing compared with the vast sums for which the House of Commons votes.
It is difficult, therefore, to believe that money is the problem. The problem is the inertia of the Home Office. I hope that this Home Secretary will overcome it. He has all the evidence from the research done by the Home Office, and he has heard or read our speeches today and on Second Reading. I hope to goodness that he will do something. If he does, he will serve democracy, which is ultimately what the Bill is all about.

Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has spoken of how registration officers in local government are being starved of the resources that would help them go about the important business of keeping the electoral register up to date and ensuring that the names of those entitled to vote are on it.
I concur with my hon. Friend's view that there is a need for more resources to help these officers carry out their work. We all know that all local authorities, because of capping and other restrictions, have problems employing enough people in their registration offices to carry out the necessary exercise to maintain a full register.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of our anxieties about the limitations placed on people in local government who are trying to carry out this work. The amendment gives the commission additional powers to enable it, if it is not satisfied because the electorate in a given area seems significantly different from its population, to delay submitting its report until it is satisfied with the accuracy of the register. That is an entirely constructive move. Nothing in the amendment is offensive to the work of the boundary commission. Indeed, it strengthens the democracy embodied in the commis-sion's work. We all want to ensure that everyone entitled to register to vote at elections should be included on the register.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A county may contain 16 or 18 seats and may include urban areas scattered throughout its length in which there is a material fall in the number of those registered. But just as urban areas can be affected by the failure to take account of the true numbers who should be on the register, because of the

manner of redistribution, the whole county and all the seats in an area will be affected too. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. O'Brien: I intend to inform the House of a situation identical to that described by my hon. Friend. I refer to the county of West Yorkshire, which contains a large number of cities—Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees and Wakefield. There are also rural areas in the county. The population is not centred on any one area; it is spread across the county. The approach of the boundary commission is to take the number of registered in February 1991 and divide it so as to leave just over 90,000 electors per constituency.
The five metropolitan districts in west Yorkshire have 12 seats, but the boundary commission suggests that, theoretically, it should be entitled to 11.41 constituencies. That suggestion is made on the basis of the figures in the electoral register of February 1991.
According to the figures, the 23 constituencies in west Yorkshire are made up of an average of 68,540 electors in each constituency. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that 1,000 electors could be missing from each constituency register. That is a conservative estimate, but if we accept it and add that number to the average of 68,540 for each constituency in west Yorkshire, the figures would be in line with the recommendations of the boundary commission. The amendment substantiates the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham and by Labour Members.
I reiterate that we must be fair and that we must be seen to be so. The boundary commission must also be fair when it submits its report and its proposals, particularly those for west Yorkshire. I do not see how any justification can be made for reducing the number of seats in west Yorkshire when we take into account other events of the past five years, such as the introduction of the poll tax. In that time, the number of people adding their name to the electoral register has reduced significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said that, five years ago, 99 per cent. of those eligible registered to vote. However, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary accepted that that figure had decreased to 95 per cent. When that decrease in registered voters is taken into account, I see no reason why the 23 seats in west Yorkshire should not be retained. The Home Secretary must take into account the extenuating circumstances of the past five years.
We must ensure that those who are entitled to vote add their names to the electoral register. It has been suggested that it is important that the report is published speedily —no one wants a delay before the boundary commission's proposals are published. It is important to speed up the process, but if that report is produced earlier than expected, the Home Secretary and Conservative Members should take account of the amendment, as it would help to solve the problems that we have outlined tonight.
5.45 pm
The review that we are discussing is based on the electoral register of February 1991. Some counties will be divided by the electoral quota. We have been advised that there will always be discrepancies in the number of electors in various constituencies. For example, the Isle of Wight would equate to 1.4 constituencies according to the figures provided by the boundary commission. However, if


another constituency were to be created, it would mean that one Member of Parliament represented constituents on the Isle of Wight and on the mainland. For that reason the boundary commission said that an additional constituency would not be permissible.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to rural areas where the population is widely scattered. That leads to discrepancies in the number of people on the electoral register for each constituency. If we accept that discrepancies exist, west Yorkshire, which is made up of cities, conurbations and large rural areas, would be justified in retaining its existing number of seats.
Earlier, I pointed out that, on average, 68,540 voters make up each constituency in west Yorkshire. If we accept those figures and the geographical location of the communities, the boundary commission would be justified in spending some time on its review of the distribution of seats in west Yorkshire. If the boundary commission feels that it needs more time to consider the issues, it should be given it, so that its report is accurate and in the best interests of the people of west Yorkshire. The amendment would provide such accuracy.
If the Home Secretary is unable to accept the amendment, I hope that he and other Conservative Members will take account of our arguments. Reference has been made in the debate and on Second Reading to constituencies crossing boundaries. Some constituencies cross the boundaries of London boroughs. My constituency, which crosses the boundary between Leeds and Wakefield, is made up of a part of Leeds and a large part of Wakefield. That is necessary to give Leeds and Wakefield their full allocation of seats. In 1987, Leeds had 8.25 constituencies and Wakefield had 3.75 constituencies —12 seats between the two district authorities. On the basis of the February 1991 register, it has been suggested that Leeds is entitled to 7.5 constituencies and Wakefield to 3.5—a total of 11. In that way the boundary commission would reduce the number of seats in west Yorkshire from 23 to 22.
I hope that I have explained in detail the concerns that I and others in west Yorkshire have about the need for the boundary commission to review the situation before taking a decision to reduce the number of representatives to the House of Commons from west Yorkshire.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 1979–80, when the boundaries in Yorkshire were dealt with —I declare an interest because I had something to do with them—Leeds was entitled to 7.25 seats and Wakefield to 3.75, with the result that, taking the two metropolitan districts together, there were 11 seats, one across boundaries? The position now is that Leeds should have 7.5 seats, and Wakefield 3.5, so if one adds the two together one still gets the same total—11—and the redistribution should logically take place on that basis.

Mr. O'Brien: That is exactly what the concern is. The suggested electorate of 90,500 results in a reduction of one in the number of constituencies. Because of the extenuating circumstances such as the rural areas in the county and the fact that there are at least 1,000 people missing off every electoral register—I think that that is an underestimate, and that the figure is nearer 2,500—we have every justification for supporting the amendment.
The Home Secretary should allow the commission the opportunity to present a factual report. In its press release, the commission said that it considered that time is limited in the present circumstances and that it would have difficulties in presenting its report by 1995. When I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, and pointed out that the boundary commission had said that it would be pressed for time if it had to present the report in 1995 and he is now asking it to report 12 months earlier, the House was told that the commission would be given additional resources to help it to make up the shortfall and to ensure that it could report in 1994. We have heard tonight that only limited resources will be made available.
We should consider carefully what we have heard from the Home Secretary and what is happening on the ground. We need to ensure that the boundary commission, which will be limited in its resources, can report its findings. I hope that pleas that I have made on behalf of west Yorkshire will persuade the Home Secretary to accept this constructive amendment, which will give the boundary commission additional powers and solve many problems in west Yorkshire.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Like a number of my colleagues, I voted against Second Reading last week, and the debate tonight proves how right we were to do so. We are debating the narrow nature of the Bill. Even if there is accommodation on both sides of the Committee about the progress of the Bill, and even if there is agreement about how we proceed with electoral registration, it will be impossible to make an accurate assessment that will assist local authorities and communities, in this current round of constituency redistribution, to gain access to the commission in a way that will ensure that the final decisions correctly represent the number of people who should be on the register.
The amendment is about who is eligible as compared with who is on the register. In Greater Manchester, there are about 104,000 potential members of the electoral register who, for various reasons—local circumstances or wider circumstances—are not reflected in the numbers on the register. Yet a document already produced by the boundary commission implies a decrease of two constituencies in the Greater Manchester area, from 30 to 28.
Therefore, even if, during the progress of the Bill, my hon. Friends or, more importantly, people in the community such as community representatives can find more information to show that a less than accurate view has been taken of the number of electors in the area, that will be insufficient to secure additional seats in the Greater Manchester area. The implied change has already taken place. The theoretical entitlement has already been fixed and two seats will have been taken from the Greater Manchester area.
At this stage, it is vital that the Bill is held up until the Government give the basic commitment that, in those areas where there is already a declared, or implied, intention to reduce the number of constituencies, there will be a registration census to ensure that the boundary commission does not fix, in advance of its inquiries, the entitlement for a county, whether it is in the London area or a shire area. If entitlement is fixed at the beginning of the boundary commission's proceedings, we can have all the debate that we like in this place about the improvement


in registration, but the reality will be a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats, despite the clear evidence that the population has not fallen significantly and that a substantial number of people who are entitled to register have not done so for various reasons. That is why the amendment is so important. It will make it clear that, if the boundary commission is to remove seats, it must do so not on the basis of the implied information but on practical information about population trends and those who are entitled to register.
I have a question for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I hope that now, or later, he will tell me whether the population area referred to in the amendment is that of a particular constituency or that of a particular county. That is vital because, if the amendment is just about the population in an area, that will not resolve the problem that I am raising because the boundary commission will already have fixed the absolute number of seats in any area. Therefore, even if the Government accept the amendment, it would not go far enough in protecting areas such as that which I represent, where there is a significant under-representation, for various reasons, of those entitled to be registered.
My hon. Friends the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have spoken about the practical steps that need to be taken to improve electoral registration. That is not new. For a decade or more, hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, have argued for an improvement in both the practicalities of registration and the way in which electoral registration officers are required to carry out the registration procedure. Depending on the constituency or borough in which one lives, one may have an electoral registration officer who makes efforts to canvass for registration. In our area, that does not happen. People are therefore dependent on the importance that a borough places on their right to vote.
There are widespread discrepancies throughout Britain in the way in which the register is produced. That has to end. There must be a method of enforcing procedures throughout Britain that are consistent between boroughs. There must be a code of conduct also for registration, and the electoral registration officer or the local authority should not be able to put such a document aside. It should set out clearly and specifically the rights of individuals to be registered and the methods that the registration officer has to follow to ensure that the entitlement of registration is upheld. That must apply whether the individual is in a home of multi-occupation, in student lodgings, or in temporary accommodation which is the subject of housing transfer between a local authority and a housing association or of a transfer to an elderly persons' home. If there is a transfer from ownership of a home to another form of home, the right of electoral registration must not be lost. We must ensure continuity of the right to vote.
The same goes for employment. Why should someone who changes his employment status lose his ability to vote? To use a buzz term, why should not the citizens charter ensure that electoral registration takes place?
6 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has not taken the opportunity to respond to the question which I posed, and I do not know whether he will do so.

The issue to which it relates, however, is important to many of us on the Opposition Benches. Does the amendment, in terms of the review, relate the area of population to the area of a constituency or to the area within a county boundary to which a constituency is attached?
Is the Home Secretary prepared to provide additional resources, either through the boundary commission or to electoral registration officers in counties where there are large discrepancies between those who are registered and those who are residents, to overcome a problem that could lead to a reduced number of parliamentary seats? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to provide additional resources to enable a census to take place? When the boundary commission comes to consider major conurbations such as Greater Manchester or London, it should be in receipt of up-to-date information about potential electors and those who are actually registered. Without that information the Bill will do no more than enable the Government to put a date in their diary on which they can proceed to push through electoral redistribution for party political reasons. If that happens, no account will be taken of the practical and, more importantly, the political way that we redistribute parliamentary seats.
We must ensure that votes have equal value wherever they are cast, and that means up-to-date electoral registers. Areas such as Greater Manchester must not lose two constituencies merely because 104,000 potential electors have been left off the register. The loss of those electors threatens one-and-a-half constituencies. The people are living in the area but they are not registered. Why should we lose two seats in Greater Manchester 12 months from now, whether they be held by the Labour, Liberal or Conservative party? The people of Greater Manchester are entitled to 30 parliamentary seats and we must ensure that that entitlement remains.

Mr. Tony Banks: The House will not be surprised when I say that I support amendment No. 1. I shall be brief because the arguments have been well covered. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate it would be helpful if he were to respond to some of the anxieties that have been expressed. There would be no need for the amendment if we, the Opposition, felt that the Government were taking seriously the discrepancies in the political register—in other words, the many potential electors who are slipping through the democratic net. It is obvious that the Government are not.
The electoral register, voting methods and the number of people on the register should surely concentrate the minds of all hon. Members. Along with research and secretarial allowances, for example, the electoral register should surely be the second greatest issue for us. Au contraire, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), all those who have contributed to the debate have risen from the Opposition Benches. It could be said, perhaps, that not enough Labour Members have spoken. I cannot understand why consideration of the Bill in Committee, as on Second Reading, has not sufficiently engendered the interest of hon. Members. We are talking about those who put us in the House in the first place. Perhaps there is too much complacency in the House. Perhaps hon. Members are saying, "We are here to decide the issue. As we are here, ergo, the register must be working all right. Why spoil it?


If we bring a few more people on to it, perhaps we shall not be sitting in the Chamber, perhaps the additional electors will vote Tory, Labour, or for another party." I am worried that we are not showing sufficient concern. We, the Opposition, are showing more concern than Conservative Members but we are not showing the degree of concern that we should for something as crucial as the electoral register and the number of people who are on it.

Mr. Rooker: There is a warning for the future. It is far better and more honourable to show concern now than after one's constituency has been abolished. It is better to discuss the issues now than to moan about democracy after abolition. To complain afterwards will seem, as it will, to reflect a narrow, vested interest. My hon. Friend has made a telling point.

Mr. Banks: It seems that Newham will lose one seat. So be it; I am not here to argue necessarily that that seat should not be lost. I take my hon. Friend's point of principle. We are talking about the very stuff of democracy. We are not discussing whether X is a Member or Y is not. That is not the issue. Similarly, we are not really discussing whether this is a carve-up in the interests of the Conservative party. It seems to some of us, however, cynical though it might be, that the Tories are interested in rushing the Bill through, not to do something about representational levels in constituencies, but to grab for themselves an extra 20 seats, perhaps, in time for the next general election. Unless we hear something from the Government about the appalling state of the electoral register, especially in city areas, we shall be able to say only that our cynical interpretation of the Government's actions is correct.

Mr. Barnes: The stuff of democracy that interests most Members includes proportional representation and referendums. There is nothing wrong with that. If those are key issues, however, the correctness of the electoral register must have prominent significance. That must be so if, logically, it is tied to the other two considerations. Let us say that we had a referendum and the result was similar to the Danish one. If our register was 5 per cent. inaccurate, for example—in fact, the inaccuracy is greater than that—the impact on the result of the referendum would be enormously significant.

Mr. Banks: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's sterling work. He has set an example that the Government should follow. He has used his time in the House to draw attention to something that should be worrying us all. He has support on the Opposition Benches but at times he seems to be ploughing a lone furrow. The private Member's legislation that he seeks to introduce deserves some support from the Government. He is right to say that everything hangs on the register. For the sake of 1,000 voters in 11 constituencies, we would have a hung Parliament. I am not suggesting that we are concerned about the register because, but for the 1,000 voters in those constituencies the Labour party, would be in government and the Conservative party would be in opposition, or that somehow we would all be milling around in the middle of the Chamber. That is not the issue.
I return to the principal consideration. We should all be concerned about 2 million of our fellow citizens who appear to have dropped through the democratic net. We need to find out where they are. We must ascertain why

they were not placed on the register and then do our damndest to get them on it. We should sit in the Chamber as Members of a Parliament that is genuinely reflective of the wishes and needs of the people. That brings me to proportional representation, but this is not the time to discuss the matter fully. It is always an attendant factor, however, when we have anything that affects the electoral register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is right when he argues that we make allowances in the quota for rural areas because they are large geographic areas. Accordingly, we might not go for the quota of about 70,000. If we can make those allowances, why cannot we make similar allowances for deprived inner-city areas? The electorate in my constitu-ency is nearly 47,000, but I put it to the House that my constituents bring me two or three times the weight of problems that come to a Tory Member who, perhaps, has 90,000 on his electoral register.
The Tory Member will say, "Never mind that. You may have more problems but we are electing a Government." Only if we think about proportional representation can we find some way eventually of balancing out the discrepancies between different cosntituencies. I accept that we should not debate that issue when considering the amendment before us, but I wish to emphasise and underline the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.

Ms. Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the amendment is accepted we would want the commission to examine the procedure that allows a large number of people who have not lived in this country for 20 years to appear on the register? Should not the commission investigate the way that their names were added to the register just before the last general election?

Mr. Banks: That is a good point. Indeed, after every general election there should he an examination of what happened during it. That should not be restricted to Labour Members wondering why they did not win; it should be an overall investigation. There should he a full discussion in the House so that we can all give evidence of our experiences as canvassers and campaigners in our constituencies. We have genuine information that we want to share in the interests of wider democracy—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr with such effect.
We need to consider voting habits. The "Panorama" programme to be screened on television tonight apparently will show that a Tory councillor in St. Ives has been signing up poor old biddies—indeed, even the dead —for proxy votes. I know that voting is important, but I did not realise that it was more important than life and death—although it obviously was for that councillor. Such malpractices should be weeded out. If the "Panorama" programme proves to be as juicy as has been trailed, a number of matters will be weeded out—perhaps even the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Who knows?

Mr. Winnick: That programme is actually to he shown on "Newsnight".

Mr. Banks: Quite so—and it is another excellent investigative programme.
We hope that the Government will make an announcement about additional resources. The Secretary


of State must accept that it is a crazy way to organise matters. Why is not each person given an electoral number that follows him around, rather like his national insurance or national health service numbers? We obviously think it important to have those fixed reference points, but it is no less important to have a fixed reference point for voting. Voting underpins everything that we do in this place.
We know that the way that electoral registration is operated, especially in inner-city areas, is bad. There is an inaccuracy in our registers of up to 17 per cent. The Secretary of State must know that registration is far more difficult in a mobile area. Communities in inner-city areas, such as London, are more transient than those in more stable communities elsewhere. In boroughs such as Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Haringey and Ealing, the electoral registration officers have to work much harder to get people on to the electoral registers than they do in other areas. We need to equalise not only the voting quota, but the resources available to electoral registration officers throughout the country.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that during my speech I suggested that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) had made that very point. I now realise that, in fact, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who said it. I hope that he realises that when he makes such excellent suggestions they fall on fertile ground, at least among Labour Members.

Mr. Banks: I am always at my hon. Friend's disposal to give him a few good ideas. He has plenty of his own, but a few of mine might make him an even more formidable parliamentarian.
There is a degree of dissatisfaction on the Labour Benches, and I suspect that if we scratched the surface we would find a similar feeling on the Conservative Benches, about the way that these matters are organised. If the Government accept the amendment, they will show that they are prepared to do something about registration. If they do not, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what additional resources he will make available to ensure that the next general election is fought on the maximum possible number of those eligible to vote, and not on an inaccurate register as in 1992.

Mr. Bermingham: I shall not repeat all that has been said about electoral registration numbers as that matter has been covered in depth, and I agree with all that has been said. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, an important feature of the argument has been overlooked, and that is how we define an area. In electoral terms, are we referring to a shire county and taking that as the skin? Are we talking about a metropolitan district and taking that as the skin? Or are we talking about a London borough and taking that as the skin?

Mr. Darling: Both.

Mr. Bermingham: That leaves me a little confused because one area plus another area equals a third area, so which area do we take?

Mr. Darling: The intention behind the amendment is that if, when considering the numbers living in a county or a constituency, the commission is satisfied that the register is inaccurate, it may delay the process until it knows exactly how many are in both. It is clear that the same problem arises in both, which is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that elucidation, which goes to the heart of the matter. Unless it is known what the electorate will be within the largest skin—which will be a county in the forthcoming review—the correct number of seats cannot be worked out. Unless the norm factor—68,000, 69,000 or whatever —can be divided into the totality of the electorate, we cannot work out how many seats the area should have. It might be 10.2 or 10.3—or it may be 10.5, which would mean 11 instead of 10 seats. We cannot work out what the average constituency should be.
Another feature about the size of the electorate is often overlooked by the commission and should be taken into account in the forthcoming review. In an inner-city area where there is a considerable amount of demolition following compulsory purchase, there will be consequen-ces for the number of electorate who will be in that area when the constituency comes into force. The converse of the coin, which is equally important, is an area where there is continual new build—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary will interrupt his conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). These points are important to Richmond and to many other areas. If an area has continuing housing redevelopment, it is obvious that there will have been a population movement between the time that the reviews first began —1991—and the time that the recommendations come into operation in about 1995 or 1996. Distortions will be built in to the commission's findings unless it takes those trends into account.
At the last commission hearings—and I again declare my interest in that matter—it was our experience that the commission did not always take into account the demographic trends, nor the development in some areas and the demolition in others. All those factors can affect the totality of the skin and the number of seats within an area. They can also affect the size of constituencies within a county, where there will be a deviation from the norm if those factors are not taken into account. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that they should be taken into account. Where there is a predictable trend, either because of demolition or because of new build, those trends should be reflected in the way that the skin is constructed so that at the commencement of the next parliamentary round for the new boundaries there is equality of numbers within the county, metropolitan district, borough or whatever.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were right to say that the key factor is getting the system right and fair so that there is an equalisation of votes. If we use a little common sense—which is not beyond the wit of man—and take into account demographic trends because of demolition and new build, there is some hope that we shall achieve constituencies that are somewhere near the same size, which should be the aim of us all.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a mistake—although this is almost inevitable on the Floor of the House—to read into an argument a point of view that is too partisan. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) followed the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in claiming that the red meat of party politics is behind all this. I do not believe that that is true, or that those hon. Gentlemen are necessarily pursuing their party advantage—although they may think that they are—in using the arguments that they do.
On Second Reading, there was no serious dissent— certainly not between the two Front Benches—from the proposition that the boundary commissioners should proceed promptly, according to a timetable aimed at the end of 1994. That would make it likely that the next general election will be based on up-to-date boundaries.
No one argues either against the proposition that constituencies should be based as far as possible on equal boundaries. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East invoked the Chartists in support of that principle. We are all Chartists in that respect today.
There is no party difference between us as to the desirability of people registering to be eligible as electors, and of them casting their votes—if we could persuade them all to do so. I do not recall all the occasions when Ministers of any party allegedly fell short on that proposition. It is the first instinct of parliamentarians to attach particular importance to democratic politics. We should ensure as far as possible that everyone is registered, and encourage all to vote.
In the last election, I appeared on a programme with representatives of other parties before an audience of young people who had been selected by the researchers precisely because they had said that they did not intend to vote for any party. The hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and myself all said that we would rather those young people voted against our respective parties than take the cynical view that they should not cast their votes at all. My guess is that practically every right hon. and hon. Member would have made the same response.
We are proposing a fair electoral system based on single member constituencies and on accurate registers that record as many of the electorate as possible. We have already started the process in England without any controversy. There was no protest about the English boundary commission or its timetable. The Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish commissions must start work shortly to meet the timetable on which we have all agreed.
It is necessary for the English commissioners to base their electoral quotas, as they are, on the 1991 electoral register. The other commissioners will work to the 1992 registers.
The amendment says that if, on reflection, the commissioners were to discover particular problems with the registers, delay should intervene. The nature of that delay is not clear from the amendment. Is it suggested that the review should be stopped altogether, until we are persuaded that we have a better register? The amendment urges delay, but that would be inconsistent with the Bill.
Most of the debate centred on the administrative machinery of local government. Without widespread dissent in the past, we have always delivered electoral registers on which to conduct our parliamentary elections. There has been a slight reduction in the proportion of the

population who, on the best estimates, appear to be registered—but that pre-dates the community charge, which was widely cited as the reason for that reduction.
In 1991, 95.5 per cent. of the population of England and Wales appeared to be registered, and the figure for Scotland was 96.5 per cent. It appears that there are no figures for Northern Ireland, although one hon. Member gave Northern Ireland top marks for having a high level of registration.
By any international standards, those percentages reflect a very high level of registration. It is a good record. Anybody—including the electoral registration officer— should be alive to any proposal for improving registration still further. I will touch in a moment on what we should do to support electoral registration officers in their work.
For a variety of reasons, a proportion of the population does not register. Scarcely an inhabitant of these islands does not know that he or she is entitled to vote in an election. However, a number of potential electors do not vote because they are not interested. We must have an administrative system that gets them on to the register. We are talking only about administrative steps that might improve the system.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what would happen if the Local Government Boundary Commission decided to restore the historic county boundaries after the parliamentary commissioners have made their first report? Would they be able to make an interim report, to take such a restoration into account?

Mr. Clarke: Clause 3 emphasises that one of the Bill's main aims is to stipulate a cut-off date for local government changes that the boundary commissioners would have to take into account in making their reports. Changes that come into effect before June 1994 will be taken into account by the parliamentary boundary commissioners. In England, that is likely to mean that counties already reviewed will find that the new county boundaries are taken into account. If the Local Government Boundary Commission reviews some counties after that date, it will still be possible at any time for the parliamentary boundary commission to make an interim report—though I imagine that it will concentrate first on publishing its main report.

Mr. Barnes: I am sorry that the right hon. And learned Gentleman has no figures for Northern Ireland, because I obtained some from the Library. They show that since 1987, Northern Ireland's electoral register has increased by 1.2 per cent. and that registration by attainers—a massive problem in England, Wales and Scotland—has risen 7 per cent. Why is it that between 1987 and 1991 the figures improved in Northern Ireland but collapsed in England, Scotland, and Wales?

Mr. Clarke: They did not collapse. They fell by a comparatively small percentage. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who has long campaigned that the community charge would have that effect. It may have done in respect of a few people. I do not deny that some people—partly because of all the publicity attached to the community charge—decided not to register because they thought that they would thereby avoid paying the community charge. They were misguided if they believed that, as everyone knows. It was not particularly reputable for such people to


go to such lengths to avoid paying for their local government services, and to give up their votes. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is sincere, he has never convincingly made the case that the community charge damaged the accuracy of the electoral register.

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will not exchange anecdotal evidence. We are all experienced campaigners, and we have all had anecdotal experiences. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) related quite an amusing anecdote about people who are not on the register. Usually, the basic reason is that they do not realise that, to be on the register, they have to be resident at the address in question on 10 October, or 15 September in Northern Ireland. In any election campaign, one meets a lot of people who are not living at the address at which they ought to have been registered on the date in question.
Others fail to complete the registration form, or do so frivolously—which is a criminal offence. Most elections produce local newspaper pieces about, for example, a budgerigar that was given the vote because its owner thought that it would be witty to register it. We are dealing with those on the fringes who are not very keen on registering, not necessarily because of the community charge.
When I am canvassing, I always remind myself—and opinion pollsters would do well to remind themselves—that about one fifth of those who register will not bother to vote in any case. Many will not want to vote, perhaps for religious reasons. We hear counsels of perfection in regard to putting names on to the register, but a sizeable proportion of the population could not care less whether their names are on it. It is our duty as politicians, whatever our party, to seek to overcome that, and to encourage people to register for the sake of democracy—conceding that they can vote for our opponents if they wish to. Given the background of sheer apathy and active refusal, I think that 95.5 per cent. is not a bad score.
6.30 pm
Other hon. Members have given examples from their electoral experience. In my constituency, one sector of the population is particularly badly represented on the register: members of the armed forces. Most of the inaccuracies in the register concern the RAF station at Newton, and that is the source of most of the complaints from people who find that they are not entitled to vote. When election day comes, the overall high turnout in Rushcliffe is pulled down because the Newton turnout is low: by that time, most of those who are on the register are serving elsewhere.
That is a practical difficulty, which can be set against the claims that the names missing from the register are all those of inner-city Labour voters who are avoiding the community charge—people from Hackney and Newham, North-West. We need to tackle the difficulties that face electoral registration officers by ensuring that the names of serious, willing voters—whatever their background—are put on the register. In 1990, only about 65 per cent. of those in the armed forces were registered. Matters have improved, but I urge the military authorities to make greater efforts. Perhaps their new computerised system will make that possible.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The overall figures are pretty impressive. The Home Secretary has urged the military authorities to make a special effort. What similar action is he taking in regard to authorities in difficult areas, and what resources is he providing to ensure that one vote equals one value? Unless he can reassure us, we shall begin to suspect that the Government are concerned about time rather than achieving an accurate register.

Mr. Clarke: I was coming to that, because I believe that it represents the substance of the debate. Hon. Members have made practical suggestions about possible improve-ments, but, given the discrepancies over figures that have been cited—overall figures, and figures relating to specific parts of the country—only a few of those suggestions are likely to have much impact. Clearly, it is for the Home Office—and, most important, for electoral registration officers in the local areas concerned—to have regard to such matters, and I am sure that they do.
A typical electoral registration officer—or the best of such officers—goes in for postal and hand deliveries of the forms, and most canvass personally as well. That needs to be supported by publicity campaigns, which have been mentioned already. Such campaigns have always been used to encourage registration. This year, the Home Office proposes to spend £617,000 on them; the Scottish Office will also become involved. Some local authorities have their own campaigns. We shall continue to advertise to encourage eligible people to complete and return their forms. I have my doubts: I believe that the people concerned know perfectly well that they are entitled to vote, and that the forms are being sent out. Nevertheless, reminding them to find out whether they have a form and are registered may jog their consciences.
We must also continually revise and update our code of practice for electoral registration officers. At present we are doing that, while also producing a series of individual practice notes designed to maximise the efficiency of the process. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who follows such matters closely, is probably one of the few hon. Members who are familiar with the practice notes.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am a little annoyed with the Home Secretary. He had a go at me when I was not in the Chamber, and he had another go at me a moment ago. I can survive that, but, as we are in Committee, I should be grateful if he would allow me to intervene now.
I realise that the Home Secretary is a great Secretary of State and I am only a grubby oik—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would go down well. In my speech, however, I was not trying to plead in a partial way for Newham, North-West; I said that I was raising a major issue. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that the Home Office will advertise, pointing out that voting is part of people's duty. There is a penalty for non-registration. Why not copy the television licence advertising, which tells viewers that if they do not fill in a form they will probably have to pay a fine? Will the Home Secretary tell us, statistically rather than anecdotally, how many people have been fined for not filling in a registration form?

Mr. Clarke: That was dealt with earlier; again, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber. I congratulate him on his first insight, but I cannot congratulate him on his


second. If he considers that he was not making a partisan speech, and was not suggesting that the Bill was aimed particularly at the Labour vote in Newham, North-West, he must underrate his ability to introduce a partisan fire and fervour to almost every point that he makes.
We in this country go so far as to operate compulsory registration and rightly—so: no one here would want to go back on that. Hon. Members have already contrasted the position here with that in the United States, where registration is voluntary and the parties must try to enrol specific groups. That is a very poor system, compared with ours. The criminal offence is failure to send back the form, or putting inaccurate information on the form, but as far as I am aware the prosecuting authorities have not considered it sensible to bring any prosecutions on that ground.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West may believe that the way in which to raise the registration figure from 95.5 per cent. to 100 per cent. is to prosecute people who register their budgerigars, but I do not think that that is the most practical approach. More effective measures are contained in the individual practice notes that we have started to produce in recent years. The first two, on performance indicators and publicity, were published in 1989. The third, on the community charge register, was published in 1990, and gave advice on how electoral registration officers should make the most effective use of their statutory right of access to the community charge register at each stage in the compilation of the electoral register. Some electoral registration officers used the community charge register to increase the number of registered electors for electoral purposes.
The fourth, on the pre-printing of names on the electoral form and the carrying forward of names on the register, was issued in 1991. In the longer term, we have produced a leaflet on electoral registration and the electoral process, aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds. It was distributed to electoral registration officers, and publicised by means of a press advertising campaign aimed at teachers, together with a new leaflet on voting by post or by proxy.
Hon. Members may claim that even that has not achieved more than a 95.5 per cent. registration, but, in my opinion, the likely practical effect of that list of steps taken by the Home Office in the past two or three years exceeds that of most of the proposals that have been made in the past three hours of debate.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: When my right hon. and learned Friend prepares the next set of practice notes, will he consider the problems that arise when returning officers send out registration forms as early as the end of August, six weeks ahead of registration date? In my view, that leads to more under-registration than almost anything else.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's suggestion and the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Derbyshire, North-East can be taken into account as we put out the practice notes.
To return to the amendment, we are talking about the means by which we can help good electoral registration officers to improve their performance by getting people on to the electoral register. That is not a matter for the Bill. It will continue to be done, I am sure, in all those local authorities where electoral registration is given the priority

that it ought to have. The amendment is wide of the point. It caused the hon. Member for Makerfield to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) what it meant—a perfectly sensible question.
Without being pedantic, there are other questions that one could ask about what exactly the amendment means. Whatever its precise effect may be, the amendment is based on the argument that if the parliamentary boundary commission, which is not responsible for the registration process, is satisfied that there is some inadequacy in the register, delays should then occur. Whether that means that one should stop the redistribution in that part of the country, or that one should wait until someone discovers whether any of these measures can increase registration, is left unsaid. The amendment is impracticable.
The House agreed on Second Reading that it wants the parliamentary boundary commissions to proceed on the timetable that is expected by most people: that the end of 1994 is reasonable and that the new boundaries should come into effect at the next general election. The amendment is inconsistent with that timetable. We can continue to take on board sensible suggestions about how to improve the registration process and the matters to which the boundary commissions should pay regard at inquiries. The amendment serves no worthwhile purpose. It would cause needless delay. I ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State has followed a well-established court room technique by rubbishing the amendment. He went so far as not to read it, therefore misquoted what it says and then suggested that the Committee should reject it for that reason. I agree that there is no serious dissent that a review is inevitable, but to claim that my hon. Friends were disingenuous when they said that the Government were seeking party-political advantage is going a bit too far. Does anybody imagine that the Government would have introduced the Bill if they did not smell party-political advantage? It is not right to say that there have been no protests so far. Ever since the poll tax legislation was introduced in Scotland and then in England, people have realised that one inevitable effect would be a reduction in the number of people on the electoral register.
The amendment is different from the way in which it was represented by the Secretary of State. It proposes that
if the Commission is satisfied that the electorate in any area is to a significant degree different from the population in that area who are qualified to vote then they may delay submitting their report until they are satisfied as to the accuracy of the register.
That means that if the boundary commission believes, on the evidence before it, that there is evidence to suggest that it is working on a false assumption as to the electorate, it is open to it to delay submitting its report until it is satisfied about the accuracy of the figures. That seems to me to make sense and to be absolutely straightforward. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that it will not matter whether the boundary commission is considering the quota for county purposes or the actual numbers within the constituency. The boundary commis-sion can hear evidence and can decide to delay making its final report until it is absolutely sure that it is working on something like an accurate register.
6.45 pm
The debate has made it clear that more people are convinced that the registers are inaccurate than those who are convinced that they are accurate. It is time that the Government accepted that in many cases the registers need to be updated and made accurate. It is wrong for the Secretary of State to say that we are dealing with people who are not very keen about registering. In many cases we are dealing with people who are very keen indeed to do so but who, for some reason, have been missed off the electoral register. To say that a lot have been left off for religious reasons seems to me a pretty low reason.
This is a fundamental, not an administrative, issue. If the boundary commission is working on the wrong figures, it will get everything else wrong. If it does not know how many people live in a county or in a region in Scotland, it cannot get the quota right. If the boundary commission does not know how many people live within one of its proposed constituencies, it follows that the discrepancy will be even greater than it is now.
A number of reasons have been advanced for this inaccuracy. As has already been said, it has become socially acceptable to avoid registration. I do not believe that it should be acceptable to avoid registration. Some of my hon. Friends drew attention to the discrepancy between the way in which we treat poll tax registration and the way in which we treat electoral registration. When it comes to the poll tax, every effort is made to follow up those who are not on the register. There is a real incentive to register. A penalty will be imposed on those people who are not registered.
While the onus is on the poll tax payer to prove that he or she ought not to be on the register, the electoral registration officer would have to satisfy the court that he had sent out the form in the first place in order to prove that it had not been returned and that therefore an offence had taken place. All we ask is that exactly the same enthusiasm should be shown in ensuring that people are on the electoral register. If Parliament decides that it should be an offence not to be registered, all reasonable means at our disposal should be used to ensure that the register is accurate and that people who ought to be registered are on the register. It was done for the poll tax; it ought to be done for the electoral register.

Mr. David Cleland: Although the Secretary of State may be right when he says that there will never be 100 per cent. registration, that is no excuse for not trying to get as full registration as possible. The Secretary of State has acknowledged today that he knows that 4.5 per cent. of the people in England are not registered. When the boundary commission draws up its proposals for constituency boundaries, ought it not to take that figure into account?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I was seeking to make. The boundary commission ought to take into account the fact that it is common ground that overall the electoral register is at least 4 per cent. inaccurate. The Minister who wound up the Second Reading debate said that he sympathised with those who believed that the register is inaccurate.
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Makerfield made the point that when calculating the quota for Glasgow and Manchester it is important to know how many people are on the electoral

register. The hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that it was simply an administrative matter. Both hon. Members referred to housing estates in their constituencies that had not been included on the electoral register. When deciding whether constituencies are either above or below the quota, every person who is eligible to vote ought to be considered. I would say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, yes, it is possible to tackle the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) drew my attention to one case where the electoral registration officer in Grampian had written to people with foreign-sounding names to find out whether they ought to be on the register. It is up to him, apparently, to decide whether to do that. I wonder why on earth he is spending so much effort on it. If he has got so much time on his hands, there are other things that both he and other electoral registration officers could be doing to ensure that the registers are accurate.
We have suggested many things that we believe that the Government ought to do. However, they have been dismissed by the Secretary of State. We suggested that advertising ought to be stepped up, not just to jog people's memories but to remind them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, of the penalties that might be visited upon them if they do not register. If the Government are prepared to spend money on advertising the facility for overseas voting, they ought to spend money on advertisements to encourage people to ensure that their names are on the electoral register. If the Government thought that they could get more Tory voters on to the registers, I am sure that they would spend public money. If there were ever to be a referendum here on Maastricht, or anything else, a good number of Conservative Members would, I believe, want to make sure that the register of electors was up to date.
We have put forward many suggestions that would make electoral registers more accurate, because it is a fundamental matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, some areas may gain seats while others lose them. If we are to embark on that process, it is important to make sure that we have the right figures to start with. It is also important to know on what basis we are doing it. We should not simply hazard a guess.
I think that we were absolutely right to table the amendment. The Secretary of State's dismissive response showed that the Government are not interested in whether people are registered to vote. For that reason, we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Rooker: I want to deal with a couple of points, one of which was not raised in the debate. Only the Home Secretary made international comparisons. He said that our rate of registration—95 per cent.—compared well internationally.
Our register must be more accurate than most others because it is done from scratch each year for a single-member, first-past-the-post system. In other words, there is more scope for distortion in our allocation of seats than under other European systems. That is not an argument against other electoral systems but a fact.
Italian electoral registers are compiled at constituency level and are revised annually over three months. Our registers are compiled from scratch at the end of the year.


In Italy, whatever we might say about its Government, the names of people who do not vote without a justifiable reason are noted for five years on the public record.
Electoral registers in Switzerland are compiled and revised continually. Our poll tax register, unlike the electoral register, is revised continuously and is bound, therefore, to contain more people. Electors in Switzerland can abstain if they have a justifiable reason, without which they are subject to a small fine.
Electoral registers in Denmark, the most quoted country in the House in recent weeks, are compiled on the basis of a central register of persons, but it is revised continuously; it is not an annual snapshot. The chances of it being accurate, therefore, are greater than in this country, where voting is not compulsory. Electoral registers in Belgium are continuously kept up to date and voting is compulsory.
Those are just a few examples of where the mechanism and administration of the system are so different from ours that they make nonsense of the Home Secretary's point that our 95 per cent. registration rate compares well internationally.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that our registers are compiled from scratch every year; they start with the previous year's register. Sometimes, electoral registration officers have to go through the registers removing people whom they kept including but who had moved away. The hon. Gentleman has not produced a figure comparable to my 95 per cent. Although I have no facts to knock him down with about the electoral registration system in the wilds of Apulia being better than Britain's, I am surprised by his glowing description of Italian and Spanish levels of administration of the electoral system. We must try to improve our system, but it is nonsense to say that it compares badly with others.

Mr. Rooker: I do not accept that. If our electoral system were the bee's knees, it would have been used for the poll tax, which has a continuously rolling register. That is not the electoral registration system that we use.
I do not accept the Home Secretary's argument, which we first heard during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which established the poll tax. No intellectual argument was advanced for our having two different registers. The electoral register is a snapshot and is set up from scratch because of electoral registration officers' discretion to dead-wood the register. The use of more modern computer practices in recent years has caused massive shifts in the electoral register. It is set up from scratch each year and the Home Secretary cannot gainsay that. He seeks to give the impression that it is a one-off register—that once people sign they remain on it for ever, which is not true.

Mr. Barnes: The chance to establish a rolling register will present itself on 12 February, when I shall introduce my private Member's Bill, which will tackle the problems that the Home Office is refusing to tackle.

Mr. Rooker: The Home Secretary read out the practice notes, which are to be applauded and I do so willingly, but the Home Office cannot say what it does to monitor the effect of those notes. There is no systematic means of it discovering whether new notes and ideas work. The

Government's refusal to monitor the advice that they give leads me to believe that, for party-political reasons, they do not want to know.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 303.

Division No. 38
[6.55 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Enright, Derek


Adams, Mrs Irene
Etherington, William


Ainger, Nick
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
 Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
 Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Austin-Walker, John
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes. Harry
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Benton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Berry, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Betts, Clive
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boyce, Jimmy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gunnell, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, James
Hoey, Kate


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoff


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cummings, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'I'nd)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dafis, Cynog
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'I Br'g'n)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (IsIwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian






MacDonald, Calum
Randall, Stuart


McFall, John
Raynsford, Nick


McKelvey, William
Redmond, Martin


McLeish, Henry
Reid, Dr John


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McMaster, Gordon
Roche, Ms Barbara


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Trimble, David


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Hara, Edward
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wright, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Purchase, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Eric Illsley.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Booth, Hartley


Aitken, Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Ancram, Michael
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Budgen. Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Peter


Bates, Michael
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Body, Sir Richard
Chaplin, Mrs Judith





Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans. David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nicholas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Stern, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Streeter, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sweeney, Walter


Pawsey, James
Sykes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thomason, Roy


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hor Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stephen, Michael
Mr. David Davis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'words' to end of line and insert '12 years'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. GeoffreyLofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 14, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'fifteen'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
'and the addition at the end of that subsection of the words "save that a Boundary Commission shall not submit such a report if less than ten years has elapsed since the date of the last General Election based upon new boundaries.".'.
No. 19, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
'and the addition at the end of that subsection of the words "save that where more than two years have elapsed since the first General Election to be held after the eighth year in which a General Election was held on new boundaries, a Boundary Commission shall not submit such a report until another General Election shall have been held.".'.

Mr. Darling: This group of amendments deals with the aim canvassed for the Bill—the time that should elapse between boundary reviews. The Government propose that a review should take place between eight and 12 years after

the previous review, whereas at present it takes place between 10 and 15 years. The amendment proposes a fixed review every 12 years.
Since 1945, an average Parliament has lasted about 3.8 years. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that boundaries remain in existence for about three Parliaments. That has some importance, as there ought to be a link between Member and constituency. During the past few weeks, discussions have taken place about the appropriate method of electing Members to the House and to other places, and those discussions will continue. I feel strongly that, whatever the system, there ought to be a link between the Member and the constituency. Clearly, if the nature of a constituency changes too often, the link will diminish in importance. If the Government's amendment to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is carried, in some cases boundaries might remain intact for only two Parliaments, which does not seem to be a very long time.
It is interesting that there have been wide fluctuations during the history of boundary reviews. When Parliament reviewed the situation in 1944, it decided that a review period of between three to seven years would be appropriate to get rid of the anomalies that had arisen. During the 1950s, when reviews were carried out by the then boundary commission, it was decided that it was not practical to carry out a review in that short time. In 1958, the period was increased to between 10 and 15 years—quite a big jump.
The Government are proposing a compromise of between eight and 12 years. There is not much difference between three and seven years, if one consider the old upper limit of seven, and the eight-year period, which is the lowest that the Government anticipate.
When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be interesting if he could let us have the Government's thinking as to why a period of between eight and 12 years is thought appropriate. We all know that the population has changed significantly since 1976 in some areas, but I am not sure that it will continue to change that dramatically. An alternative would be a rolling register as used for the poll tax, with continuing reports instead of the occasional interim report by the boundary commission.
I wonder whether the Government are contemplating that the boundary commission will prepare several reports during the eight to 12-year programme rather than one report for the whole of the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that, even with the increased resources anticipated by the Bill, the boundary commission will find it difficult to produce a report for the United Kingdom every eight to 12 years. If it has to produce an entire report after eight years, it will require a considerable amount of work, not merely to make the report but to deal with all the local inquiries and to hear the representations required and allowed in the 1986 Act.
Are the Government considering several reports, perhaps dealing with parliamentary constituency boundaries in the same way that the Government are dealing with local authority reviews in England, where it is envisaged that reports will have five tranches—to use the Government's phrase? The Government could be proposing one report for the United Kingdom every eight to 12 years. If that is the case, I should be interested to know whether they are satisfied that it can be produced.
Our amendment suggests a fixed term of 12 years, which would have the advantage of reducing the scope for a Government to vary the term to seek political advantage.


As became clear during debate on amendment No. 1, it has been suggested that that is what the Government plan to do. If a fixed term were chosen, the Government would not be able to advance or delay it, although they could invite the House to vote down the report, which is also an option at present.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It is up to the boundary commission to decide when it produces a report, within the window of years allowed by the law. It is not up to the Government to decide when it should do so.

Mr. Darling: I appreciate that, but the Government are the architect and sponsor of the Bill and I therefore wonder if they have any idea of what they want.
For example, the English boundary commission could produce one report for England within eight years, or it might decide that it could not do so, and produce two reports for a group of counties instead, thus carrying out a rolling programme. In time, all the counties would be reviewed every eight to 12 years, but not all at the same time.
If the Minister is making inquiries, could he tell me whether the piecemeal approach would be possible under the Bill as drafted? If not, I should like to know about it, because it has been suggested that it may be a tall order to expect an entire review every eight years. Perhaps the commission will decide to carry out a review every 12 years, which is the upper end of the scale, in which case it will be doing what many people think it ought to have done within the 10 to 15-year period allowed at present.
It is probably common ground that the present situation is not entirely satisfactory. One of the principal problems is that the boundary commission started work in 1976, but an election was not fought on those boundaries until about seven years later. When it was fought, the boundaries were seven years out of date. The April 1992 election was fought on boundaries that are about 15 years out of date.
I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know why the Government chose a period of eight to 12 years. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs last considered the matter, it thought that the lower period in force during the 1940s and 1950s was far too short. It recognised some of the difficulties with a long period and came down against a fixed term of 12 years because that circumscribed room for manoeuvre. I am not sure that the Committee was right, because if there is an injunction requiring the production of a report within any fixed period, the commission has to be tied to it, especially if it is to produce one report. Clearly, if it is going to produce a rolling programme, the flexibility to do so within a four-year period allows it to do that. There is something to be said for having a fixed term, so that we know where we are and when the report will be produced and we can proceed on that basis.
I do not wish to say much more on the subject. I am not sure how much interest hon. Members have in the time allowed. I think that there is far more interest in some of the other difficulties with which we have dealt and in those

with which we shall deal later. However, there are several questions for the Government to answer and part of the purpose of the amendment is to explore them.

Mr. Maclennan: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government's purpose in changing the frequency of reviews from 10 to 15-year intervals to eight to 12-year intervals may mean that some constituencies will exist for only two Parliaments before new constituencies are formed. More frequent changes to the constituency that a Member of Parliament represents could have the not altogether desirable effect of undermining the development of a long-term relationship between a Member of Parliament and all the parts of a constituency.
A degree of stability of parliamentary constituency boundaries is desirable, even though it is obviously sensible to move towards more frequent changes than take place at present. However, if the Bill is enacted as drafted, every second Parliament some Members of Parliament may be uncertain about the boundaries that they will face at the forthcoming general election. I doubt whether that is altogether good for representation; certainly, it would not be good for the democratic process where it involves the party organisations preparing to offer a choice at each general election.
Amendment No. 18 aims to ensure that no review can be implemented within 10 years of the date of the last general election to be based on new boundaries. Ideally, I should have preferred a differently worded amendment which would enable enactment to take place at a time that was separate from the date of the report. However, I understand that such an amendment would have offended against the long title of the Bill, so I have drafted the amendment to tackle the problem in a different way and to prevent the boundary commission from reporting if the consequence of doing so is to produce a review in fewer than 10 years. The Government are probably right to argue that infrequent reviews lead to wide discrepancies in electorates. However, stability should also be recognised as a desirable end.
Amendment No. 19 addresses another problem: reviews that are completed just before a general election and implemented almost immediately after. Changes which were finalised only late in 1982 were implemented in the 1983 general election. That is an example of the mischief with which the amendment seeks to deal. If we leave the Bill as it is, the future shape of some constituencies could be known for less than a year before a general election. That would also be detrimental to effective representation and democratic choice.
I propose that we consider basing the Bill on the principle that the commission should complete a review within two years of a general election. Assuming that a Parliament lasts for four or five years—of course, that is a little longer than the average—that would allow local parties and Members of Parliament to prepare for the new boundaries. Although both my amendments inevitably refer to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 rather than the Bill, I hope that they are clear and acceptable to the Government.

Mr. David Trimble: I wish to refer to amendment No. 14, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The points have largely been


made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is a question of finding the right period. Indeed, the Secretary of State spoke in those terms. Obviously, the objective of moving forward what has just been referred to as the "window" within which the boundary commission has to report from between 10 and 15 years to between eight and 12 years is to allow more frequent changes to boundaries. I agree that more frequent changes are not necessarily a good thing. There is a need for a degree of stability in constituency boundaries. It is desirable to allow a degree of identity to grow up within a constituency, especially if it operates on a single-Member basis.
We boast about the link that is supposed to exist between a Member of Parliament and a constituency. If the boundaries are changed too rapidly and fundament-ally, that link is destroyed. It takes some time for the link to develop. If there have been major changes, it usually takes one or two elections before people become completely familiar with the new boundaries. The Government's objective seems to be that boundaries should change after every second election. That would mean that people would never become familiar with the boundaries. It is desirable to allow a little more time between changes. We have tabled our amendment to increase the window from eight to 15 years in an effort to give the boundary commission more time, largely in the hope that that will result in greater stability. I find amendments Nos. 2 and 18 equally acceptable and I would support them if there were a Division.
When boundaries change, a certain degree of change has to take place within constituency associations. That may not be a great problem for Members of Parliament from Great Britain because the local government units under which they operate are more sensible. Unfortunately, the legislation in Northern Ireland is such that we regularly find that when constituencies change we have to break up branches and re-form them. I hope that we shall tackle that problem when we discuss another amendment tabled in my name, which seeks to allow us to operate on more sensible local government boundaries for the purposes of the Bill. The objective of amendment No. 14 is to create a little more stability.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I should like to deal with each amendment in turn, but before doing so I shall answer several of the questions that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked. If I understood his questions correctly, I can cover them quickly. There will be four boundary commission reports—one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will not be one report for the whole of the United Kingdom. That stems from the legislative arrangements in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

Mr. Darling: The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there will be one report for each country at the same time so that all the reports are with the relevant Secretary of State at the end of 1994. It is the Government's intention that the new boundaries will be in operation before the next election. That is the point that I made. But I asked whether it would be open to the commission to produce a report every two or three years on a rolling basis for England, which is much bigger than the other countries.

Mr. Lloyd: I was coming to that point. No, it will not be possible. Under the 1986 Act, there must be a report for the whole of England. The final report cannot be produced piecemeal, although, of course, the provisional recommen-dations are produced piecemeal.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central also asked why we had chosen 12 years. The best that I can do is to refer him back to what I said in reply to the Second Reading debate. We have chosen 12 years because 15 years has allowed too great a disparity between electorates as a result of population movements in that period. The size of constituencies ranges from 42,000 electors to more than 90,000 in England, from 32,000 to 70,000 in Wales, and from 23,000 to 78,000 in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might question whether 12 years is short enough when population movements are so substantial, but we have picked 12 years as the period which gives the continuity of constituency boundaries and Members' relations with them to which several hon. Members referred.
Indeed, we have adopted the period suggested to the Select Committee by the deputy chairman of the English boundary commission some time ago. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, amendment No. 2 requires the commission to submit its report on the twelfth anniversary of the previous report. I accept that that proposal has some attractions. It would ensure that reports were not so frequent as the new minimum period of eight years would make technically possible, and it would avoid the possibility of upheavals in constituency boundaries more than once a decade. In some ways, it would also be convenient for everyone to know in advance when D day had to be.
7.30 pm
However seductive the idea, alas I fear that such a fixed date would present some real problems for the commissions. They would feel obliged to start their work just as early as they would with the eight to 12 years rule because they would never be able to tell in advance how long they might be held up by local inquiries or judicial challenge, let alone the exigencies of their own work. The open and responsive rules that the commissions must follow mean that completion dates do not finally lie in their hands, nor can they be accurately predicted.
Indeed, a look back to the timing of previous commission inquiries and reports shows that they have usually slipped back towards the latter end of their reporting window. There is no reason to think that that would change in the future. Indeed, quite the contrary, because that built-in uncertainty in their timetable is why the commissions have always been given a period of years in which they are required to submit their reports. It gives the commissions the elbow room which experience shows that they need.
The major effect of amendment No. 2 would be to make it inevitable that the commissions would have to sit on their report for a period before presenting it. If the review had gone smoothly, that might be a year or two. If a general election were called during that time, it would have to be fought on old boundaries—out-of-date boundaries based on out-of-date registers—when more up-to-date proposals were available. That would defeat the central purpose of the Bill: to secure as up-to-date boundaries, based on the latest electoral registers, as reasonably practicable. For that reason, I ask the House to reject amendment No. 2.

Mr. Darling: The Minister said that for each country there could be only one report under the parent Act of 1986. May I draw his attention to section 2(1) of that Act, which provides:
For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, there shall … be four … Commissions".
Section 3(1) says:
Each Boundary Commission shall … submit to the Secretary of State reports
—in the plural—
with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom
—and goes on to say what those should contain. Subsection (2) also refers to reports in the plural. Given the language used, how can the Minister be so certain that the commissions cannot produce a multiple number of reports? Whether that is desirable is another matter. Have I missed a provision that would require the commissions to produce just one report for the whole of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lloyd: We have both missed that provision and I shall not find it in the few seconds available to me. However, where the Act refers to parts of the United Kingdom it means England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not parts of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. As usual, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I shall try to supply him with the exact reference, or references, in the Act before the end of the evening.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) urged on me amendment No. 14. The amendment would change the cycle of eight to 12 years to eight to 15 years. I do not know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intended, but, if so, I must discourage him. I have some sympathy with his motive of allowing more time between reviews to place more emphasis on the continuity of connections between a Member of Parliament and his constituency and between constituency associations and their constituencies than on equal numbers. But the period of eight to 15 years that he proposes is considerably less satisfactory than the present range of 10 to 15 years.
Obviously, the commissions need elbow room for unexpected delays, complications and the unpredictable. The time-consuming process of local inquiries and possible court proceedings mean that a range of time must be allowed, but to expand that period from the current five years to seven years, rather than reduce it to four years as the Bill proposes, is to move in the wrong direction. It would increase uncertainty about when the next reorganisation would be introduced. I agree that frequent reorganisations would be unwelcome.
However, the amendment would also give an undesirable latitude to when the commissions' reports should be ready. The commissions may feel obliged to make judgments on whether it would be politic to complete their reports, thus being drawn into political controversy. For that reason, and because the amendment flies directly in the face of the intention of the Bill to ensure that the commissions' work is speeded up, I ask the Committee to join me in rejecting amendment No. 15.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) tabled amendments Nos. 18 and 19. As always, I listened to him carefully but especially so this time as the wording of his amendments, particularly amendment No. 19, was as complex and testing as if it had

been drawn up by a talented and experienced Government draftsman. He explained that he wanted to protect the practice of more frequent reviews but, within that, the continuity of relationships within constituencies and between a constituency and its Member of Parliament. He also wanted to avoid changes just before a general election, but, on a quick reading of his amendments, I am not sure whether he would necessarily succeed in doing that.
I have some sympathy with the idea that there must be at least two general elections between a review and much sympathy also with the belief that there is value in continuity in the relationships between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. However, all commis-sions seem to report nearer to the end rather than the beginning of the time allowed, so some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns would, in practice, be answered by the commissions' behaviour, the timetable that they set themselves, and the time taken by the inquiries that they hear after receiving objections.
However, I have more substantial reasons for saying that I cannot accept the amendments. Amendment No. 18 would seek to ensure that no report could be made sooner than 10 years after the date of the first general election held on the existing boundaries. Depending on the timing of the report in relation to that first general election, that could mean that no new report would be submitted for up to 14 years. The fact that that could happen was shown when the boundary commission reported in 1969 with recommenda-tions based on 1965 registers, but the first election under its proposals did not take place until February 1974. If the amendment had been in place then, the next proposals would have had to wait until 1984–19 years after the base date of the previous review.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also proposed an amendment with the same objective. However, it, too, could delay reports for up to 14 years and possibly a little longer. I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. A balance must be drawn between equality of electors in constituencies where there are rapid movements in population. and continuity between Members of Parliament and their constituents and within constituencies. I believe that we have drawn the line in the right place. In so far as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seeks to ensure that change is not disturbingly frequent, I agree with him, but believe that the exigencies of the process will ensure that.
My basic objection to his amendments is that they could lead to gaps and would frequently lead to gaps that were close to the present ones, which it is the Bill's intention to close. We would be back where we are now, with periods that are too long. For that reason, I invite the Committee to reject those amendments.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving some thought to my amendments. I was also pleased to hear that he accepts the underlying intention of amendment No. 18—that there should be a gap of two Parliaments before change is implemented. I find it difficult to believe that it is beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to achieve the objective that he and I apparently share. If my amendment is defectively drafted, I take full responsibility as I drafted it. However, the Minister's response to that amendment is somewhat encouraging and I ask him at least to consider, between now and Report


stage, whether it might he possible to meet our common aim of not allowing the electoral boundary map to be redrawn within a period of two Parliaments.
The purpose of amendment No. 19 was certainly not to protract the process in the manner adumbrated by the Minister. He is doubtless right in saying that it could have that effect. I readily acknowledge that part of the reason for that is the tightness of the Bill's drafting, which has made it impossible to do what I believe would be more sensible: require the Government to lay an Order in Council implementing the boundary commission's recommendation close to the date on which it is finalised. Had it been possible to do that, we could have avoided the difficulties to which he rightly drew attention.
Does the hon. Gentleman share the view that it is undesirable to produce a boundary change flat up against a general election, and that it is better for democracy and stability for those who organise elections—the political parties, all of which are equally affected—to have some time in which to operate within the new boundaries before the election date is decided?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that it is more convenient for political parties to have a longer period in which to organise matters. However, I am not so sure that it is necessarily greatly in the interests of the electorate or the working of parliamentary democracy, although there are arguments both ways. If one of the amendments were adjusted—as presently drafted it would not succeed—it could ensure that there was no election within two years of a boundary commission report being produced. However, one must bear in mind—it certainly weighs heavily with the Government—that to put on ice the proposals for more up-to-date boundaries while an election is fought on older, more out-of-date boundaries is not necessarily in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the smooth running of the system.
The hon. Gentleman asked me nicely to reconsider and I shall not refuse. Although I have some sympathy with his desire for continuity, I suspect that it would be impossible to devise a way of ensuring that continuity without allowing for the period between reviews coming into effect to be drawn out to much the same length as at present. I think that he encountered that difficulty in his amendments. I shall reconsider the matter, but I am not optimistic of finding a solution that satisfies both of us.

Mr. Darling: I was hoping that, by now, the Minister might have received the advice that I was seeking. While he was speaking, I thought that he received a piece of paper containing that advice. If that is not so, perhaps we shall have to wait.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act states:
Each Boundary Commission shall … submit, to the Secretary of State reports"—
plural—
with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom".
That means that each boundary commission will produce reports in respect of that part of the United Kingdom for which it is responsible and seems to suggest that they can produce multiple reports. If I have missed something, perhaps the Minister will intervene.

Mr. Lloyd: There was something that I missed—the arrival of a piece of paper while I was talking. If I can read

the handwriting, I believe that it states that section 3(2) of the Act refers to a period of 10 to 15 years from the last report. Under section 3(1), each boundary commission has to submit a single report on its last periodic review. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until later in the debate, I shall check those references myself. I said that he might have the answer before the end of the evening. The night is still young and I still hope that I can oblige him. He can refer to the reference while listening to other hon. Members speak, as will I.

Mr. Darling: Subject to any ruling by you, Mr. Morris, or whoever occupies the Chair for the debate on the next group of amendments, I think that the matter might still be in order then as it relates to reports.
Subsection (2) appears to refer to reports produced in accordance with subsection (1), which does not rule out multiple reports. It states that each commission may produce reports—plural—with respect to that part of the United Kingdom for which it is responsible. Subsection (2) merely states that the commissions must report between 10 to 15 years after they last did so. That could be taken to imply that there will be only one report, but the Minister should consider that aspect.
If there is to be a possibility of reports being produced every eight years, at some stage in the future the boundary commission may say that it cannot possibly deal with the matter for the whole of England and would prefer to produce a series of reports. Such an approach has been heralded by the local government attitude and is expressly taken into account when dealing with clause 3.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised the issue—as I did —of the frequency with which reports should be considered. Like him, and possibly the Minister—I may be stretching a point there—I think that there is something to be said for allowing constituencies to last more than two elections.
If there is to be a regular review, I assume that there will not be dramatic changes such as we might see in the reports that we shall consider in two years' time, although it is conceivable that there will be. In my constituency the last time around—it was not my constituency then—a large community was transferred from it into another constituency, and a correspondingly large community was transferred into it. Clearly, there is something to be said for fostering the links between a Member and a constituency—hence there is something to be said for leaving a constituency intact for some time.
Large rural constituencies are different. I am not sure that the boundary of Caithness and Sutherland has changed in recent memory—it has merely encompassed the two counties. But in urban constituencies such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and myself there is a measure of community feeling and people need to identify with their Member of Parliament. That is difficult enough given the natural movement of people, but eight years is also a rather short period.
The Minister did not hold out much of change. He could more bluntly have said that there was no hope at all, but he was being nice to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and said that he would think again—before rejecting the idea on Report or Third Reading.
I am prepared to accept that my suggestion of fixed terms of 12 years is not without its defects, but my purpose


was to ensure that as long as we have single-Member constituencies and set great store by the link between a Member and a constituency, a decent period is needed before they are changed.
The Minister complained legitimately that constituen-cies based on electorates that no longer exist undermine the whole concept, but the problem that we face arose 10 or 15 years ago when the boundary commission considered boundaries on the basis of the electorate in 1976 and the relevant constituencies did not come into force until seven years later, in 1983. So they were seven years out of date when the first election based on them was fought. The 1976 electorate was in turn based on registration in October 1975. We need to shorten the period between the start of the process and the making of the boundary commission's report. That would deal with many of the Minister's objections.
There is much to be said for dealing with each country as a single unit in boundary reviews. There is a danger in picking and choosing, selecting parts of the country which may be advantageous. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Conservative Home Secretary would consider it right to review the parts of the country that he thought could disadvantage his oppenents, leaving alone the areas where he considered his strength lay. There is some suggestion that that is precisely what the Secretary of State for the Environment is up to.
Whatever advice the Minister receives, I hope that he will reconsider the possibility of amending the Bill. A period of eight years represents a problem even worse than might be supposed, because half way through a second Parliament a Member might have to transfer his attention to constituents he hoped to have and away from those he already had. It is already not uncommon for Members to start canvassing people whom they know will enter their constituency, in anticipation of a review—

Mr. Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Darling: I am about to say something that may stop the Minister wanting to intervene. These matters have been canvassed at some length. I readily accept that this was a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN REPORTS

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'subsection' and insert `subsections'.

The Chairman: With this we may also take the following: Amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 31
Government amendment No. 11.
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert
`provided that such boundaries are specified in any Act passed on or before that date whether or not that Act (or any part of it) is in force on that date'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 31, at end insert

`provided that the Boundary Commission may not publish recommendations which take account both of boundaries which are in operation and of boundaries which are not in operation at the time of publication'.
Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, leave out
`the Boundary Commission for Wales
and insert 'a Boundary Commission'.
Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Lloyd: You kindly said, Mr. Morris, that I might discuss in more detail the answer to the question asked me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on an earlier group of amendments. His question concerned the possibility of partial reviews of parts of the United Kingdom. I was about to intervene at the end of his speech, but I rise now to clear up the matter.
The 1986 Act, of which I am sure everyone has a copy, states in section 3(1):
Each Boundary Commission … shall, in accordance with subsection (2) below, submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom"—
in other words, to the whole of England, the whole of Wales, the whole of Scotland, or the whole of Northern Ireland, Subsection (2) in turn states:
Reports under subsection (1) above shall be submitted by a Boundary Commission not less than 10 or more than 15 years from the date of the submission of their last report under that subsection.
Taking the two elements together, it is clear that the boundary commission for each part of the United Kingdom must submit reports to the Secretary of State within the 10 to 15 year window, and those reports must relate to the whole of its part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Darling: I do not want to labour the point, but the Act does not speak of submitting a report to the Secretary of State. It speaks of "reports"—in the plural—which implies that it would be open to a commission to produce several reports on a part of the United Kingdom. The only qualification in subsection (2) regards the period in which the commission must submit the reports. This Act was considered by the House in 1986, within recent memory, and there must have been some reason for the use of the plural.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not remember attending the debate, and if I did, I did not pay close attention. The Act is grammatically correct. The boundary commission remains in existence and is on its fourth review, so "reports" refer to there being at least one report every 10 to 15 years. That is the reason; it has nothing to do with breaking up the reports into sections dealing with parts of one of the nations that make up the United Kingdom.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wants to say more about this later or to see me privately I am willing to talk to him.
The hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading that he and his colleagues would table amendments to clause 3, and so they have. I said then that I thought the Opposition might be interpreting the effect of clause 3 too widely and I undertook to look again at its wording to check its clarity and scope. I have done that in the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has arrived at the magic moment. They are designed to show more clearly and to obtain with greater precision what was intended in the original wording.
I hope that I can speedily pass over amendments Nos. 10 and 12 which are technical and consequential to


Government amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I hope that Government amendment No. 11 makes it clear that the parliamentary boundary commission may take into account in its provisional recommendations only the boundaries currently in force or prospective new boundaries—save in one instance which I shall come to later—which have already been specified in an Act, a statutory instrument, a statutory rule or measure of a Northern Ireland Assembly, but are not yet in force.
There is thus no question of pre-empting Parliament, the local government boundary commissions or the Local Government Commission. The provision is intended to give the boundary commission a degree of flexibility that will enable it to produce, conveniently for itself and everyone else, the most up-to-date boundaries. With reviews of local government boundaries around the country at different stages at any one time, it is sensible to let the boundary commission make its provisional recommendations with such prospective changes in mind.
The parliamentary boundary commission makes a series of provisional county recommendations over a number of years. It must then bring them together to make a single final recommendation to the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in which it must have regard to the appropriate boundaries in force on 1 June 1994.
In 1992 and 1993, it would surely be unreasonable to prevent the boundary commission from taking into account, in its provisional recommendations, boundaries which it knew that Parliament had approved for 1 April 1993 or 1 April 1994. It would mean that it would have to present revised proposals later, which would increase its work. It would also oblige those making representations upon it to do so in terms of boundaries which those petitioners knew were about to be superseded. That would happen if our amendment were not accepted, and it would certainly be so if the House were to accept amendment No. 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and his colleagues.
8 pm
By contrast, amendment No. 4, also tabled by the hon. Member and his colleagues, would achieve a similar effect to Government amendment No. 11, except that it would confine flexibility to boundaries that are adjusted by Act of Parliament only, and not by statutory instrument, which is the normal procedure in England. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will drop amendment No. 4 and accept that Government amendment No. 11 would achieve more completely what I believe that he intends to achieve with amendment No. 4. I also hope that he decides that my clarification meets the worries that persuaded him to table amendment No. 9 and that he will accept that, during the course of the general review, it will certainly be possible and right to have some provisional recommenda-tions made on boundaries that are in force at the time and on some that will be prospective. It would cause great difficulty if that were not to be the case.
Of course, the final proposals must relate to boundaries that are in force, except in the one instance to which I alluded in clause 3(3). The special exception in that subsection relates specifically to Wales because the review of local government structure in Wales is well advanced. Proposals were set out in a consultative document issued in the spring of last year, and a White Paper is due this autumn, with the intended changes recommended therein

coming to Parliament in a Bill which should be on the statute book before June 1994. It would obviously be of great convenience to the Welsh boundary commission, to Welsh local government and to the electors of Wales if the parliamentary boundary commission were obliged to have regard to the boundaries in that Act even though they were not yet in force. If that were not permissible there must, at the very least, be an interim review and there could be local and parliamentary elections with the boundaries of constituencies of local authorities not matching as well as they might before such a review took place. For that reason, clause 3(3) makes an exception of Wales and requires the Welsh boundary commission to have regard to boundaries incorporated in an Act on the statute book by 1 June 1994, but not yet in force.
Amendment No. 13 adds to that by making it clear that, in any provisional recommendations that the Welsh boundary commission may make, it is able to take account of any new boundaries included in a Bill that has had a Second Reading in the House. Of course, there is an element of risk. If the Bill does not go through the House or become an Act by 1 June 1994, the boundary commission for Wales would have to revise its proposals to accommodate them to the boundaries then in force rather than to those that are intended. As I said, there is a risk either way. However, Wales is sufficiently far down the track of reform for the risk of not taking into account the changes made in a Bill that has received a Second Reading and of having therefore to revise proposals in the second half of 1994 to be substantially greater than taking them into account and then having to backtrack because the Bill has missed the deadline and failed to become an Act by 1 June 1994.
I have some sympathy with amendment No. 7, which makes the exception apply throughout the United Kingdom, hut, on the argument of balance of risk, I advise the Committee to reject it. Proposals for structural reform are nowhere else as far advanced as they are in Wales. In England, a rolling programme will be put into effect by statutory instrument and not by Act of Parliament. In Scotland, the Government are proposing a further consultation stage. What is helpful for Wales and would reduce uncertainty there would import unwelcome uncertainty elsewhere in the United Kingdom, where local government structural reform is less well advanced.

Mr. Maclennan: I understand the Minister's reasoning in respect of Wales. However, is not the consequence for Scotland of his not accepting amendment No. 7 a serious alteration in the balance of criteria, which will be considered by the boundary commission for Scotland if the Bill is enacted? As the law stands, under the 1986 Act, the boundary commission is required to give greater weight to local government boundaries in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the boundaries to be considered in Scotland are not up to date—that is what the Minister appears to be saying—we will find that the boundary commission in Scotland will give greater weight to other criteria. Therefore, it will alter the balance of substantive law and not simply accelerate the process.

Mr. Lloyd: The parliamentary boundary commission in Scotland will have to take into account the boundaries that are operational on 1 June 1994. The local government boundary reviews for Scotland are on track to be in place well before that date. Therefore, the normal local


government boundary review will inform the final report of the parliamentary boundary commission in Scotland. It is possible that two issues are being confused. The structural review and possible change of local government in Scotland, on which a first consultation paper has been issued and for which another is due, is a separate matter.
It would be difficult for boundary commissions in places where the proposals for the structural reform of local government are not so well advanced as they are in Wales to assess, until the last minute, what proposals they would take into account. They would be far less certain as to what those proposals would be until the final stage and they would not be sure that they would be on the statute book by 1 June 1994.
As I said, there is a risk for Wales, but there is a far greater risk for other areas of the United Kingdom. What is helpful for Wales, in which structural reform is far advanced, would be unhelpful for other parts of the United Kingdom and, certainly, for the boundary commission, which would have to judge whether the proposals that had been mooted were likely to get on to the statute book. It would then have to decide whether to keep its review going until close to the deadline at the end of 1994 or whether it should properly ignore the proposals because it felt that they would not come into force. The most sensible and helpful thing is to say to the rest of the United Kingdom that the boundaries will be in place and operational by June 1994 with the exception of those in Wales, quite simply because the process is further advanced there. I am talking about the review of local government structure, not the normal local government boundary commissions, which will make their conclusions well in time to enable the parliamentary boundary commissions in all parts of the United Kingdom to take them into account before that cut-off date of 1 June 1994.

Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the local government review structure in Scotland is likely to be in place by 1 June 1994?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I am saying that it may well not be. Unlike Wales, it is not so far advanced. As I understand it, a consultation document was issued last year and another is due out later this year but in Wales what is now due is the White Paper following the period of consultation, which has now ended. Therefore, it is possible to write into the Bill that which enables the Welsh boundary commission, without much risk, to take the conclusions into account. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, with structural reform of local government in England and Scotland not so far down the track, there could be an uncertainty that would be extremely awkward for the boundary commissions to manage.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he recognise that the consequence of the policy behind what he has just said is that for Scottish parliamentary constituencies, following the next report of the boundary commission and the proposed restructuring of Scottish local government, which is apparently to be subsequent to it, there will be a departure from the rubric of the 1986 Act, which is that the boundary commission shall have regard to the local government boundaries. As

a result of this process of acceleration, in Scotland, local government boundaries and parliamentary boundaries will not coincide.

Mr. Lloyd: It is the exception for Wales that is out of line with previous practice. The actual boundaries operational in 1994 will be those that, in Scotland and England, must be taken into account by the parliamentary boundary commissions when making their proposals. There will be no discrepancy. If, afterwards, there is an Act of parliamentary measure in England that changes the structure of local government, there would then have to be, as there is when local government boundaries are changed, an interim review by the parliamentary boundary commission. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that what the Bill proposes would put local authorities out of line with the boundaries proposed by the Scottish parliamentary boundary commission.
The requirement of the 1986 Act, which applies to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom, is that the commission must take account of the boundaries. It has traditionally been the boundaries that exist. For the convenience of Wales, which is so far advanced, an exception is being made to allow the boundary commission to take into account that which is encapsulated within an Act of Parliament that is due to come into force. It is possible to do this for Wales because it is sufficiently far advanced for there to be a reasonable certainty that that Act will be available in time to be taken conveniently into account. In Scotland and England that is more problematical.

Mr. Maclennan: There is not a factual misunderstand-ing between us. It is a question of judgment as to whether it is appropriate that the boundary commission for Scotland should be basing its accelerated work under the provisions of the Bill on boundary commissions for local government that will be rendered historical by the Government's future restructuring of local government. The practical consequences of that will be that the parliamentary boundaries will not, for the duration of the period that follows the report and the implementation of the boundary commission's recommendations, coincide with local government boundaries in Scotland, whatever may be the position in Wales.

Mr. Lloyd: They will be when the parliamentary boundary commission reports. I believe that the local government boundary commission for Scotland is due to report later this year, so there will be a connection between the local government boundaries and the proposals for the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. It may be that measures passing through the House a year, two or three years afterwards will alter local government boundaries in Scotland but it is up to the House, at a future date, to decide on proposals that have not yet been made. If that change comes about, the normal operation will happen, and there will be an interim review to adjust parliamentary and local government boundaries as has been done before. That is the fairest, most open and most convenient way to proceed.

Mr. Darling: As the Minister said at the outset, we tabled amendments to qualify clause 3 because we had reservations about it. I am glad that the Minister has also tabled amendments, which have met some if not all of our objections.
Our amendment No. 3 would have the effect of removing the provision allowing the boundary commis-sion to choose to base its recommendations on boundaries that did not exist nor were in operation. Amendment No. 4 presents the alternative approach of qualifying the clause so as to ensure that the boundary commission could consider only those boundary changes that were enshrined in an Act. I take the Minister's point that amendment No. 11 goes much wider than that, and has met the point of amendment No. 4. Perhaps I should say for the benefit of those who read reports of our proceedings that I welcome Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11, although, for technical reasons and so as to deal with other points in the group of amendments, we may have to divide the Committee against them. The amendments that the Government have tabled will improve clause 3.
The Minister has distinguished between the work of the local authority boundary commission and local govern-ment structure. He is right to do so in part, except that, once Parliament has determined the local authority structure, it will be necessary for the local authority boundary commissions to redistribute boundaries within those structures. There comes a point, if Parliament has decided what is to be encompassed within a county or a region, at which that may have an influence on the shape of a constituency or constituencies that the parliamentary boundary commission is considering.
I make that point because, in England, where the local authority structure is being dealt with in groups—or tranches, as the Secretary of State for the Environment calls them—there will be a point at which those boundaries will have a bearing on constituencies. I am sure that the Government know that full well, and that is why the Secretary of State for the Environment picked the groups that he did. They do not seem to be to go naturally together. He said in his statement that he had picked them partly because of their proven unpopularity, which is another way of saying because they consistently returned councils of a political complexion different from the Government and for that reason he wished Sir John Banham to get to grips with them at an earlier stage than the councils which have followed the Government's instructions over the past few years and which are to be left until later on.
It would be out of order for me to canvass the Secretary of State's views on these matters—we can only guess what he had in mind. However, we can have a pretty good guess knowing this Government and knowing that they would not have introduced the Bill at all had they not smelt political advantage. One can have a pretty good guess that the intention is to benefit the Government by nodding and winking to the boundary commission, or nudging it in the right direction.
I am sure that clause 3 has been framed so as to allow the commission to pick and choose—in other words, to take account of new boundaries in some areas and old boundaries in others. Amendment No. 9 would deal with that. Had the clause been allowed to pass unchallenged, the commission could have had regard to new boundaries

that did not exist in the sense that they did not appear in any Act or other measure and were simply twinkles in Sir John Banham's eye, or perhaps the Government's eye. That would have been most unfortunate and an extremely bad precedent. Government amendment No. 11 has qualified the matter.
In England, five groups or tranches of counties are being examined. The Minister heard the debate that began this afternoon's proceedings, which focused on clause 2 and registration, and will realise that the counties that are examined in England will be crucial in determining the commission's work. It is not so much registration of timing that will have an impact on the political complexion of constituencies but the boundaries that the commission uses. That is why boundaries are so important, and that is one reason why the Secretary of State for the Environment has dealt with these matters in such an odd way. It is also the reason why the Government introduced clause 3. There is an awareness that opportunities may arise that will allow the commission, while following impartially the guidelines, to make recommendations that the Government think might favour them.
I remember in "Yes, Minister" instructions being given to impartial bodies. It was said by Sir Humphrey that all that was necessary to remain impartial was for the Government to lay down the railway lines and to put the railway engine at one end of the system, and the engine would end up precisely where the Government wanted. At the same time the Government would be completely impartial, having had no regard to any political considerations. Clause 3 smacks of that practice. That is why we have sought to qualify it—successfully, I think —by ensuring that the commission can take account only of those matters that Parliament has already approved. We wish also to ensure that there can be no picking and choosing within any one area.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is what the Bill would do with the amendments that I have proposed. With the exception of Wales, the final report of the commissions to the Secretaries of State can take into account only boundaries that are operational. In provisional reports they may take into account boundaries which are not operational but which have been included in legislation or which have passed through the House of Commons in the form of a statutory instrument. Therefore, the commission cannot pick or choose, and the Government cannot direct it to do so. It is clear that the commission can use only boundaries that are operational by the cut-off date, which is June 1994. There is no choice for either the commission or the Government.

Mr. Darling: That is precisely the point. If we take the first tranche of counties that are being considered by the Banham report, we understand from the statement made on 3 June 1992 that it is hoped that the first report will be in place by 1 June 1994. Students of boundary commission procedures know that Avon, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Cleveland, Durham, Derbyshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, north Yorkshire and the Isle of Wight are all likely to feature in the review because they raise interesting propositions. If 1 June 1994 is the cut-off date, the Government know that the recommendations that relate to that group of counties will be enacted in some form even if they are not in operation. That causes us some concern.
If amendment No. 9 is not accepted—this goes to picking and choosing—there is a possibility that the commission, in any one of its reports, will pick boundaries that existed, or exist at present, as well as those that are likely to exist, or will exist because of legislation that has been passed but is not in operation. If I am wrong about that, it will not be necessary to proceed with the amendment. It seems, however, that it might be open to the commission to do that—to pick and choose—in its report. England will be dealt with in local government terms in five separate local government reports, which means that it might be possible for the commission to pick and choose, especially at points where a new set of boundaries cross or converge upon an existing set of boundaries.
It is interesting that the Government have tabled an amendment that tends to suggest that their timetable has slipped. Perhaps we have a rare insight into the way that the Government's business managers operate. It seems that they take the view that only the Second Reading of the proposals for Wales is under way. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) wishes to speak about that and the Welsh interest generally. Clause 3(3) seems to have much to commend it when we consider Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom, and our proposals would have had the same effect.
The logic that suggests to the Government that subsection (3) has merit applies also to Scotland's position. I appreciate that Wales is ahead of Scotland in these terms. Indeed, it could be said that in Scotland these matters are not even off the ground yet. The Government decided in the best tradition of government that something had to be done. To their surprise, they discovered that many who they thought were opposed to the present structure were prepared to say that there was something to commend it. Alternatively, there were those who said there was much to be said for not dismantling it merely for the sake of change. I am one of those who take the view that there might be something to be said for local government reform in Scotland, but experience tells me that any change is costly and disruptive.
Our regional system of government gives us 12 directorates in different areas. To create 20 or 30 local authority structures suggests that there will be a degree of replication. Be that as it may, in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the local authority structure and local authority boundaries, which are the building blocks for the Scottish boundary commission, are related. If there are to be major structural changes, it follows that there will be major changes to local authority boundaries, which in turn will affect the parliamentary constituencies.
It could be that the position in Scotland is such that there would be no chance of changing anything within the country. The Government have realised that the next review might come and go before there is anything to show in Scotland. It could be that that is why no attempt has been made to qualify the position in Scotland.
The approach that the Government have taken to Wales has something to commend it when we consider Scotland. First, if there are to be no local government structural changes in Scotland, we should be told. Secondly, the parliamentary constituencies should relate

to the present structure. It is a shame that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), appears to be in the Chamber to take notes rather than to speak. Perhaps he could throw some light on the remarks of the Minister of State, Home Office. I remember that in a previous incarnation the Minister of State was challenged to name any one of Scotland's regions and failed to do so.

Mr. Maxton: The worst feature of the Scottish local government review is that, unlike the English review, it will be done entirely at the whim of Ministers. That is the worst possible thing for Scottish local government.

Mr. Darling: Government whims have a great deal to do with all local government reform. All Governments tend to implement changes that benefit their political party, and that is regrettable. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has been running up and down Scotland promising every village and parish that it will get its own local government structure if that is what it wants—and especially if it creates a little blue enclave in parts of Scotland. It would be unfortunate if our parliamentary boundaries were based on the same piecemeal and ill-thought-out approach. However, nothing in the Scottish Office surprises us. Part of the Tory revival in Scotland happened because of boundary changes. I certainly cannot think of any other way that the Government can make substantial progress in Scotland.
As I said, there is an important point in clause 3 because local authority boundaries are the cornerstone of parliamentary boundary reviews. Therefore, what happened to the structure of local authority boundaries is crucial. Another important point is the question of local links, where usually local authority boundaries and divisions are taken into account. However, last time around in my constituency, the residents' parking areas were considered to be of paramount importance. It is the first time that I have known community ties to be circumscribed with yellow lines, whether double or single.
I welcome the fact that the Government have qualified clause 3, although there are other aspects of it that cause us great concern, not least our suspicion that the Government hope to take the opportunity to lay down track lines for the boundary commission to run along, which will be to the Government's political advantage. We remain deeply sceptical about clause 3, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Listening to the debate, I was struck by what heavy weather the Opposition have been making of the Government's sensible amendment and the original proposals. Any proposals from a parliamentary boundary commission must, of necessity, be introduced throughout the country at the same time. If local government boundaries are not to be introduced at the same time, it is right that there should be a cut-off point —the point at which a snapshot is taken and from which the parliamentary boundary commission can work. There is nothing new in that. In the reorganisation of the early 1970s, it was common for local government boundaries to be changed in different parts of the country in response to


local circumstances. The parliamentary boundary commission never found it difficult to take into account those that had already reached the statute book and to ignore those still in the pipeline.
I see some Labour Members here who represent areas where there were changes during that time. I shall give the example of the city of Northampton. A moment ago, Mr. Lofthouse, your colleague in arms, Mr. Morris, was in the Chair. He came to the House to represent the constituency of Northampton, South when the parliamentary boundary commission created two seats out of the expanded county borough of Northampton. A number of villages on the outskirts were taken into the county borough, which affected the way in which parliamentary constituency boundaries were later drawn. However, that change did not happen within an overall restructuring of local government; it was an extension of the county borough of Northampton.
Sometimes, a local government structure was completely changed. I recall the creation of the county borough of Teesside in the late 1960s. It comprised part of the old county of Durham—the Stockton-on-Tees area—and part of the north Yorkshire area around Middlesbrough and out to Redcar and the county borough of Middlesbrough itself. In a sense, that was done on an ad hoc basis, because the creation of that county borough was not part of any overall restructuring of local government—it was the response of the local government boundary commission to the individual circumstances of the area. In due course, the parliamentary constituencies were realigned so that they followed the county borough boundaries.
Sometimes, such individual consideration makes precious little difference to the numbers involved. In my constituency some time ago, 60 electors in the Little Heath area of the parish of Potten End were transferred from the parish of Northchurch. The parliamentary boundaries were realigned, as is possible under the present arrangements, without waiting for the boundary commis-sion's full report. Surely no Labour Member could dispute the fact that if the discrepancies between new local authority areas are minor and involve only a few hundred or a few thousand people, there is a perfectly adequate method for bringing those into line later.

Mr. Maxton: That has happened in my area and it is a double process: first, there is the local government change of moving a piece of land from one district council to another; then the parliamentary seats are reorganised. However, to do that in Scotland without an independent commission and without any idea of what the reforms will be is quite ludicrous. I recall that the hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that set up the English local government reform. He promised me that if there were not an independent commission in Scotland, he would raise objections with his Ministers.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is a little different from mine, but lie was correct to say that minor changes occur in Scotland just as they occur in England and Wales—and I suppose, although I do not know, in Northern Ireland. I assume that hon. Members are concerned that changes in the pattern of local government will lead to major differences between the building blocks currently used to make up constituencies. That is why I said that such changes were a common feature of

parliamentary redistributions in the 1950s and 1960s—a period when there was a rolling rather than a total programme of local government reform.
Many people found themselves in one local authority area but excluded from the parliamentary constituency because the realignment had not happened. That was quite common with the county boroughs. In those days, it was a rule of thumb of the parliamentary boundary commission that where a county borough was involved, it did not cross its border into the neighbouring county. Of course, there were exceptions to that rule. In recent years, the town of Reading has always had some of its wards outside the Reading constituency. Now, some rural wards are included in it.
In its practical operation, the boundary commission must have regard to changes in local government boundaries that have already come into operation. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister is right to draw the line in the Bill and to say that any changes must have gone through the House and have statutory backing, whether or not those authorities have appointed their new chief executives or held their elections.
The Labour amendment has two disadvantages: first, there would be guesswork about what might happen to local government: and, secondly, the whole process might be delayed to ensure that everything came into line. That could lead to all kinds of injustices. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was present when I spoke on Second Reading, when I illustrated the system's unfairness by referring to the city of Glasgow, which is over-represented in United Kingdom terms and even in Scottish terms. It would be wrong for people to have a vote that was worth less in an expanding area such as Grampian than in a declining area such as the city of Glasgow. Judging from the remarks of other Labour Members on Second Reading, the view that injustices must be rectified is widely held among Opposition Members.
There can be no question of the Opposition arguing that redistribution in Scotland should be delayed until after local government reorganisation has taken place.

Mr. Maxton: The danger is that the boundary commission will do its work and devise draft constituen-cies prior to final local government reform and that those boundaries, drawn up for parliamentary purposes, would affect local government reorganisation. That could occur if certain things happened around the periphery of Glasgow—if, for example, one parliamentary seat encompassed parts of Glasgow, whereas other parts currently within Glasgow went outside the city's boundaries. The temptation would be to include in the new local government area that part of Glasgow that fell into the parliamentary constituency, even if that were against the wishes of local people.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being highly suppositious.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman spell that?

Mr. Jones: I could certainly spell it for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) —although I see that you, Mr. Lofthouse, are aware of the spelling.
The hon. Member for Cathcart is concerned not about the work of the parliamentary boundary commission but about Scottish local government reorganisation. That argument will stand or fall on its own merits. In due course, at the next redistribution, the commission will adjust the boundaries so that they came into line with the new local government units in Scotland.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It will not be necessary to wait until the new round of parliamentary boundary commission reports. There will have to be an interim review—as there always is when local government changes that ought to be taken into account occur between boundary reviews.

Mr. Jones: I addressed that point earlier, when I said that minor discrepancies could be dealt with by an interim review without difficulty. It would not be so easy to deal with major discrepancies.
When local government was reorganised in 1973–74, a large number of constituencies found that parts of their area fell in one county or another, crossed districts or crossed regional boundaries in Scotland. The practice was to leave such discrepancies alone until the next parliamentary redistribution. A perfectly adequate mechanism exists for adjusting parliamentary boundaries to deal with minor discrepancies. Major discrepancies would have to wait for—and would certainly influence —the next round.
The situation in Wales is different, because it is much further down the line. Where the boundary commission can reasonably expect progress before it has to report, it ought to draw boundaries on that basis. That is happening with the English redistribution at this very moment. Work has started on those counties whose external boundaries have, under the present local government system, already been fixed. The commission is coming to the end of its work in those counties where the local government boundary commission has not yet finished its work.
I represent a Hertfordshire constituency that is right at the end of the line in terms of the boundary commission, because there is uncertainty about the boundary between Hertfordshire and Greater London. Although only a few thousand electors will be affected, the commission— perfectly reasonably—thought fit to wait until that matter is resolved, if that can be done in time, before specifying the internal boundaries.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not a fundamental difference between boundaries in England which have been fixed and agreed and those in Wales which are no more than Government proposals, and which may have been agreed on Second Reading? What is the hon. Gentleman's view of the constitutional propriety of proceeding with that which is no more than the first stage of the passage of legislation through the House?

Mr. Jones: The situation is the same as with a proposed statutory instrument for altering the boundaries of an English county, when the boundary commission might say, "We know that this work is proceeding and will wait until the boundaries are specified before we produce our proposals for that particular area." I see no difference between that and the Welsh situation.
The snapshot approach is the right one. It allows boundary changes to be taken into account as and when they occur and of necessity it introduces a cut-off date; otherwise the entire process might be delayed. We all agree that should not happen because of the injustices that might arise. I commend the Government's proposals and the amendment to the Committee.

Mr. Alun Michael: I want to comment on amendment No. 13 in view of the contributions made by Government Members who, on the tenuous basis that they have Welsh surnames, profess to have a degree of expertise in Welsh politics. The Secretary of State for Wales would have been wise to be present. As one can hold that office these days without representing a Welsh constituency, perhaps the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and the Minister of State, Home Office are vying for the job of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman should take care.
I ask the Government to withdraw amendment No. 13 with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The amendment refers specifically to Wales, as the Minister made clear. It presumes on the existence of Sir Humphrey's railway track. It is constitutionally improper, presumptuous in regard to Parliament and foolish in common sense terms —and it is appropriately numbered.
The amendment's very existence shows that the Secretary of State for Wales has been denied time in this Session for a Bill to reorganise Welsh local government. The Minister of State said that the Bill was unlikely to be on the statute book until June 1994, which is a very different timetable from that given to us in Wales.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to add the words:
a boundary which has not yet come into operation on a particular date and which, apart from this subsection, would not be regarded as prospective on that date shall be so regarded if it is specified in a Bill which, on or before that date, has been read a second time by the House of Commons".
The Bill says that parliamentary boundaries must take into account local government boundaries following local government reorganisation in Wales. That new local authority boundaries should be taken into account even if they have not yet been established is reasonable, provided that Parliament has spoken. The boundaries would be set out in an Act of Parliament and would receive Royal Assent. At that stage the future of local government would be clear.
The amendment introduces a much more outrageous proposition—that the boundaries contained in a Bill that has not reached the statute book should be taken into consideration. That is unreasonable, because Parliament would not have spoken—and the basis of reorganisation may change considerably.
On the last group of amendments, the Minister stressed that he was not presuming on decisions to be made subsequently by Parliament. When we consider the implications, it becomes clear that amendment No. 13 contains an outrageous proposition. It would lead to the deciding of constituency boundaries on the assumption that there would be no chnge in the forthcoming Bill to reorganise local government in Wales between Second Reading and Royal Assent.
That may be the Government's aspiration, but to assume that there will be no change shows contempt and disregard for the democratic processes of the House. It is a very uncertain basis for decision-making. It is possible,


for instance, that the Government will fall and the reorganisation Bill will never become law. In that event, if the amendment were passed, the details contained in a piece of failed legislation would have to be treated as though they reflected reality. That is manifest nonsense. It is also constitutionally improper and borders on the unconstitutional.
Such a proposal is presumptuous in terms of the procedures of the House. After Second Reading come the Committee and Report stages, Third Reading, all the stages in the House of Lords and consideration of Lords amendments. It is insulting to both Houses to assume that they will make not the slightest change in the boundaries during those stages.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely the proposal is not only presumptuous but arrogant. How can hon. Members be persuaded to sit on a Committee when they have been told in advance that the result will be the same whatever they say or do? Is that not a perfect example of the Government's arrogance in power?

Mr. Michael: Indeed it is. It may be the basis on which some Conservative Members sit on Committees; certainly, they seem at present to be remarkably silent on important issues contained in Bills.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has made a good point. During the passage of a Bill to reform local government in Scotland, introduced in 1972, major amendments relating to the structure of Scottish local government were accepted. The region of Fife was created from previous divisions; areas such as Eastwood, Bearsden, Bishopbriggs and Clydebank, which under the original proposals were to be part of Glasgow district council, were taken out of Glasgow and new district councils were formed. Surely we are entitled to expect the same consideration from any Government when a Bill of this nature is going through Parliament.

Mr. Michael: I entirely agree. Even in the Government's terms, Second Reading—the stage at which we are supposed to take account of the boundaries in this instance—relates only to the principle of a Bill, not to its detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, it is arrogant of the Government to assume that no changes will be made.
The Minister said that Wales was further down the road of local government reorganisation than Scotland or England. I suspect that he has not seen the map published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the dotted lines all over it which indicate uncertainty about the boundaries and a willingness for considerable further discussion. The Minister is less well-informed about Wales than he usually manages to be. There has been no satisfactory discussion about the functions and powers of local authorities, for instance. To anyone who cares about local government—as my hon. Friends and I do—the whole position appears unclear and uncertain.

Mr. Anderson: The point was made earlier that at least a Scottish Office Minister was present, even if he was present only to take a note. Is it not rather puzzling that no Welsh Office Minister is present, even to take a note?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend's timing is impeccable. Welsh Members with an interest in the matter are present, including the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. It

would have been a little more sensible, for the Minister's own sake, for a Welsh Office Minister to move the Government amendment. In defending the clause and other Government amendments, he has completely destroyed the case for amendment No. 13. He must have felt very embarrassed about having to move the amendment and to speak in terms that were clearly inconsistent with everything that he had said about other aspects of the clause. There must be opportunities to improve the legislation during its passage, possibly in an entirely non-partisan fashion. That is very important, when a measure as important as a Bill to reform local government in Wales is going through the House.
The amendment is a sign of the Government's desperation. In recent weeks, we have tried to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to come clean about the timetable for the reorganisation of Welsh local govern-ment. It is not as clear and simple as the Minister suggested in his introduction. Questions have been answered with prevarication, or—in this afternoon's Welsh questions, for instance—with patronising knockabout. The amendment, however, tells us the truth. The fact is that the Cabinet and the Government's business managers have denied the Secretary of State for Wales time for his local government Bill. He originally promised us a White Paper in the autumn and legislation during the current Session. Tonight the Minister said clearly and without prevarica-tion, as he confirmed our suspicion that such a timetable could not be met, that it was unlikely that the Welsh local government reorganisation Bill would be in place even as late as June 1994.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard—and if, as I believe, my memory of what I said is correct—he will find that I was talking about Scotland and explaining why the same arrangements could not be made in Scotland and in Wales. What I said about Wales—the hon. Gentleman repeated it tonight—was that it was well down the track and that a White Paper was projected for the autumn. When the measures will be presented in the form of a Bill and how, when or if it will be on the statute book will depend on decisions made by the House, but the opportunity will certainly come much earlier than in the case of Scotland. In deference to Scotland, and to ensure that all is understood and taken into account, a second round of consultation is planned by Scottish Office Ministers.

Mr. Michael: The Minister manages, with a straight face, to make a brave attempt to defend the indefensible. He did make the comments about Scotland to which he referred, but at a different point he justified Government amendment No. 13, on the ground that the Welsh legislation might well not be in place by June 1994. Were that not the case, there would be no justification for the amendment. The Minister is plainly very confused about the timetable for Wales.
The legislation has wider implications, with which we cannot deal tonight. Local government members and officers need to know where they are; they do not know where they are with the timetable in its current state. We need continuity and quality of services, but that will be put at risk by this kind of doubt. The Local Government Act 1972 requires elections in May 1993, and primary legislation is required to cancel or delay them. Clearly, legislation must at least be introduced before the summer


recess for a range of practical reasons, if those elections are not to go ahead next year. It would be greatly to the convenience of local authorities in Wales if the amendment were agreed to, says the Minister. It would be greatly to the convenience of everyone in Wales to know exactly what the Government are up to—when the local government measure is to be introduced and when the measure to delay or cancel the elections is to be introduced, if that is what is going to happen.
The democratic processes of selection, the fact that returning officers need to prepare for elections and the fact that members and officers need to plan ahead—all this is uncertain because of the timetable that has been let out of the bag today by the Minister. It must be very embarrassing for the Secretary of State for Wales to be in this position, but it is a major headache for many people and organisations throughout Wales, not least those engaged in local government.
The amendment seeks to cover up the embarrassment of the Secretary of State for Wales. That is no good reason for such an extraordinary piece of drafting which makes nonsense of and shows great disrespect for the parliamentary process. I invite the Minister to show respect for the House and to withdraw amendment No. 13.

9 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Government have clearly run into a problem. The dilemma is that they want to press ahead as speedily as they can with boundary revisions because they have made a neat calculation that it would be in their interests to do so and to get the boundary changes in force by the time of the next election. They are not, however, in any way balancing that wish with an effort to ensure that the legislation is as accurate as possible. Their wish to expedite the process has run into difficulties. It conflicts with the fact that the local government boundary revision is taking place and that the building blocks upon which the commissioners will make up their minds are changing. The dilemma that faces the Government is that this is a moving target.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 13, since much of what I should otherwise have said has already been covered extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The amendment tells us that the Government's timetable for Welsh local government reorganisation has slipped. The Government had thought that the Bill would have completed all its parliamentary stages by the time the boundary commissioners reached their conclusions. It also tells us something about the clout, or lack of it, of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet. The Welsh Office plea to have this matter expedited has obviously not been heard by the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleagues.
It is not unknown for local government and parliamentary boundaries to be different. It is a little inconvenient, but it is no great tragedy. In my county, West Glamorgan, the one seat of Gower straddles both the Lliw valley district council and Swansea city council. It is less convenient, but it happens. Any changes that may come into being as a result of the recommendations arising from local government reform can be taken into account, if they are not major recommendations, in interim reviews.
We are therefore bound to ask, why the hurry? Why expedite this in Wales? As amendment No. 13 suggests, a Second Reading debate should be taken as the starting point for the local government commissioners.
The Minister has said that there is an element of risk. I made the point in an intervention that the constitutional priority that the Government seem to be ready to overlook means that, in effect, the Government are saying that the local government commissioners can go ahead confidently on the basis that what the Government have proposed, by way of a Bill whose Second Reading has been agreed in principle, will be what will emerge at the end of the parliamentary process. There can be no other conclusion.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: There can be another conclusion, if anybody with any common sense reads the Bill, as amended. The boundary commission for Wales can produce provisional recommendations based on that which is contained in the Second Reading debate. The real risk to which I referred is that there may be changes to the Bill as it goes through the House. The boundary commission for Wales would then have to revise its recommendations. Only the boundaries that are legislated for in the Bill when it has become an Act can be used as a basis for its final recommendations to the Secretary of State. They will form the boundaries of the new constituencies. That is exactly what the Bill says, with the amendments. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That is because he has not followed the argument. I accept that it is difficult to follow a Bill and the amendments that have been made to it and to get both perfectly clear, but I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman looks quietly and carefully at the amendments he will find that what I have just said is correct.

Mr. Anderson: Despite all the Minister's talk of risk and comparative risk, his message to the commissioners is, "You can act on the supposition that what is contained in the Bill as agreed on Second Reading will be the ultimate result." That is the reason for the difference between Wales and England, but it is hardly an encouragement for hon. Members to serve on a Committee.
Recommendations on boundaries are questions of judgment and are not likely to be matters of partisan conflict. For example, Labour-controlled West Glamorgan county council is making its own recommen-dations, Labour-controlled Swansea city council is making other recommendations and Labour-controlled Lliw valley district council is making yet others. Port Talbot district council, which includes Aberavon, and Neath district council, which are both Labour controlled, are making other recommendations. Non-partisan judgment is being pre-empted by what the Government are suggesting.
It is unconstitutional to prepare on that basis—the arrogance of power, as I have called it. I argue that there is no great problem in Wales. We do not have great disparities in electorates, which may be a problem elsewhere, nor are there great movements of people as there are between the inner cities of London and other great cities and the suburbs. That is not a problem which might impel the Government to accept an argument for expediting consideration.
About 20 unitary authorities, rather less than the 38 seats in Wales, are likely to emerge from the Secretary of State's suggestion. On the basis of logic, therefore, it is


unlikely that there will be much overlap or difference between parliamentary constituencies and the lower number—almost half as many—of unitary authorities that will emerge.
Wales should be treated on a par with the rest of Britain. There is no great hurry in respect of Wales. Indeed, on the contrary, there should be time for reflection and for avoiding the unconstitutional haste that the Government are accepting in amendment No. 13.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not detain the Committee long. A number of my colleagues have been slightly suspicious of the Government's timing. That being so, I must be deeply suspicious, because the Government have managed to get this group of amendments to coincide with a well-attended meeting—and not the first one, I might add—of my constituents who are deeply angry about the way in which the boundary commission is proposing to transfer them to Brent, another Labour-controlled authority.
I want to focus my comments briefly on the sense of community and the link between the Member of Parliament, the local authority and citizens in the area. That has been causing me some concern, because an increasing number of people have been saying to me that they feel that the sense of community has been overridden. I fear that the way in which the Government have approached the Bill, and indeed the timing of its Committee stage, suggests that they have given too little thought to the sense of community and all that goes with it.
The issue is fairly clear. I shall quote briefly from the Department of the Environment's guidelines to the Local Government Commission for England and shall urge the Government to take them on board in the longer-term changes that they are suggesting, which will not help with the link between Members and councils. The Department says:
Local authorities should be based on communities. The Commission should assess the extent and strength of local people's loyalties and identities, and their interests. It will use its own judgment as to the best method for making this assessment, but should bear in mind that research has shown that people's sense of identity with the community is often intuitive.
That is an important and strong point, on which I agree 100 per cent. with the Department of the Environment.
The Department then says:
The Commission should take account of people's expressed preferences … The Commission may also wish to use statistical information about the pattern of people's lives within the area under review. It may wish to look at patterns of employment, shopping and travel … The Commission should base its recommendations on communities … The Commission should take account of the strength of identity associated with each level of community.
In paragraph 11, the Department says:
All functions"—
in a local authority—
should be exercised in a way that is responsive to the needs and wishes of local people, and, particularly in the case of strategic functions, is in the wider public interest. The Commission should look at the exercise of functions from the point of view of the citizen, not the providing authority. It should look for a structure to achieve the most effective and convenient exercise of functions to fit in with community identities and which is in the interests of local people.
Complaints have been expressed strongly in the case of both the Edward Woods area which, it is proposed, should go to Kensington—that has not come about yet—and the

College Park area, about which there is a meeting tonight in my constituency, which will go to Brent. The argument is neither about different services in different areas nor, I emphasise, about different political control. I do not take the view that one should never cross local borough boundaries in London because I believe that we are getting to the stage where that might be necessary. I hope I can take the Minister with me in saying that that should be a measure of last resort because the sense of community is more important. We should go for that in the first instance.
I bring to the Minister's attention what the boundary commission itself recommends. To return to the railway analogy, the issue goes off the rails at this point. If we continue down this road, we shall go off the rails with the identity of interest of Members of Parliament. The commission recommended that College Park should go to Brent despite the wishes of the community.
The commission says:
Nearly all respondents claimed to identify strongly with Hammersmith and Fulham, and to have a few connections with areas north of the Harrow Road.
The commission gives examples of that. It then says:
We acknowledge the strength of local residents' opposition to our draft proposal; approximately 50 per cent. of residents signed the petition opposing our draft proposal, and Hammersmith Council's survey apapeared to show a similarly high proportion of households to be against major change. We accepted that College Park was unusually self-contained for an inner London community, and that it could be said to have a distinct identity.
I emphasise that point to the Minister.
A number of hon. Members have referred this afternoon to the difference between inner-city areas and other areas in terms of the rapid turnover of population. There is a rapid turnover of population in areas such as mine. However, it is also true—we ignore this point at our peril—that a core component of the local community stay within the area for most of their lives. They have a history going back not just over one generation, but over many. To override them is not in the interests of good local government or in the interests of keeping well the link between the Member of Parliament and the constituency, unless we believe that it is desirable to cross borough boundaries when deciding the parliamentary constituency.
9.15 pm
It is interesting that the boundary commission justifies its actions by referring to simple geographical barriers, such as the Harrow road which is the main factor dividing College Park from Brent. The commission says that it is not of major importance and could be crossed.
The report continues:
In reviewing our draft proposal, we were conscious of the points raised … in particular, we bore in mind that the wishes of the people are only one of the factors which we must consider.
I take issue with that. I accept that the wishes of the people are only one factor, but I do not accept that they are minor. The report continues:
We acknowledged the strength of feeling expressed by the considerable number of College Park residents who made their views known to us, but we had also to consider the pattern of community life and the effective operation of local authority services.
I understand that there could be a cost factor if we were discussing the large constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but we are talking about transferring an area half a mile down the road, or perhaps a mile at most, from the rest of the constituency. I have run around the periphery of my


constituency several times and I can do it in about two hours, but that is not true of many constituencies. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that communities matter, and I hope that the Government will not do so.
The report continues:
Notwithstanding the views of local residents, we concluded that College Park has natural affinities with Brent.
The commission concludes that, but no one else does, and it continues:
We realise that most local authorities are resourceful in overcoming problems",
and it states that it is perfectly possible to do so. It then refers to geographical divisions such as the Grand Union canal. Most of my constituents do not have to worry about crossing the canal because several bridges cross it, and it is therefore not difficult.
There is real anger about the College Park proposal. The last meeting to discuss the proposals before they became a recommendation was attended by between 150 and 200 of the 700 residents, and I am missing a meeting tonight. They were massively opposed and no one spoke in favour. I attended a similar meeting about the proposal for the Edward Woods estate and surrounding areas. Again, no one spoke in favour, and the other local authorities are not in favour.
What on earth are we doing considering amendments that the Government say must be made to ensure that the link between local authorities and the constituencies of Members of Parliament remains when all the evidence shows that the boundary commission is making decisions for geographical reasons rather than on the basis of the essence of community, which is what we should consider?
I accept that the commission should have the power to override arguments about political expediency. I want the boundary commission to be independent. If I thought that the Conservative party was fighting to get these parts of my constituency, I might be suspicious, but it is not. The proposal is apolitical in that respect.
Community and a sense of it should be our highest priority, especially in inner city areas where the community is already fractured. We fracture it further at our peril. If a community wants to stay in a local authority and a constituency, that wish should be given a high rating, and should be overruled only in exceptional circumstances, not as the norm.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was alarmed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) refer to running around his constituency. If I were to do the same, there would be a by-election before I had got 100 yards.

Mr. Maxton: What about swimming?

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know how I would get on if I tried to swim to the Bass Rock. I think we will pass over that.
The Government have concocted a number of dog's breakfasts and the Bill is certainly one. I do not doubt that they will go ahead with it—they always do—but I shall make a few comments so that I shall be able to say, "I told you so."

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has done that a few times too.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, I have, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and especially on the subject of the poll tax.
I was intrigued to read reports in the Scottish press late last week that no less a person than Professor Ross Harper had been designated as the Conservative party action man on boundaries—a sort of gerrymandering officer. We shall be watching him. I hope that truly independent boundary commissioners will not let him get away with anything like that.
I recognise the importance of much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said about strengthening community loyalties. The song in Musselburgh in my constituency is
Musselburgh was a burgh when Edinburgh was nane, and Mussleburgh will be a burgh when Edinburgh's gane.
So if anyone suggests lumping Musselburgh with Edinburgh he will be in trouble.
I shall now speak to the amendment, Mr. Lofthouse. I have the honour to represent the constituency of East Lothian, which is happily coterminous with East Lothian district council. Since the last major local government review, everyone has known where the boundaries of East Lothian are. Indeed, no less a person than the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is a citizen of East Lothian. He should know all about East Lothian. Everyone knows where the boundaries are except the Post Office, which still uses the old county areas as postal addresses in some areas, just for the sake of confusion.
The boundaries are largely a straightforward matter. Everyone understands what the district is, who the Member of Parliament is, what the constituency is and what the local authority is. But it was not always thus. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1978 I was elected to the former constituency of Berwick and East Lothian. It was a truly historic constituency. It was first constituted in 1908 from two former counties. I make that point because it is relevant to the position that we are working ourselves into.
The former constituency of Berwick and East Lothian outlived the 1974 local government boundary review. So the constituency for which I was elected included parts of two regional council areas and no fewer than four district council areas. I had to deal with six local authorities, six chief executives, and six sets of local government officers. As other public authorities often conduct their administra-tion on the basis of local authority areas, I also had to deal with two health boards, and two separate offices of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Employment and so on.
The arrangement in my former constituency was fairly chaotic for my office but it was also confusing for many of my constituents. Ideally, indeed necessarily, local authority boundaries should be related to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. It is nonsense when the Government are embarking on a major review of the structure of local government in Scotland for them to move ahead of that to create new parliamentary constituencies. We shall go back to the same confusion into which I was elected with bits of local authority areas in old parliamentary constituencies. The Government tell us that they intend to make major changes to local authority areas.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who said that


he did not want any arrangements to be made for Wales that would bring the new local authorities in Wales in line with the new parliamentary constituencies as early as possible. The remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are diametrically opposed to those which we heard a few minutes ago from the Opposition Front Bench in respect of Wales.

Mr. Home Robertson: I cannot speak for Wales but I think my hon. Friend is about to.

Mr. Michael: I am happy to do so. The Minister makes another attempt to get himself out of the mess that he has dug himself into during the day. I am happy for the new local government boundaries in Wales to be taken into account as quickly as possible. Indeed, I made that clear in my speech. That is what the Bill would do as it was originally drafted. If the amendment were accepted things would not be done as quickly as possible. The commission would be instructed to run around doing things on the basis of speculation which would be disrespectful to the House and constitutionally dubious. I do not believe that there is any difference between my hon. Friend and me, however much the Minister suggests that there is.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am relieved to hear that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
I conclude my remarks because my message is straightforward and simple. There should be some sensible correlation between parliamentary and local authority boundaries.
The Government say that they will embark on a major restructuring of local government in Scotland. It is probably right that they should do so because the two-tier local government structure has not been a success. People do not understand it and it does not work well. There is certainly a case for a single tier local authority system and I should be inclined to support such a principle, although I am always deeply suspicious of the detail of schemes that the Government introduce.
Although the structure of local government in Scotland should be reviewed, it would be absurd to construct a whole new set of parliamentary boundaries in Scotland on the basis of existing local government boundaries if, just one or two years after that, a whole new network of local authority boundaries were superimposed on those new parliamentary constituency boundaries. I have suffered from that problem in the past and seen the confusion that it causes, not only for Members of Parliament but, more importantly, for the people whom we represent. It can give rise to chaos and I fear that the Government are drifting into that again. They should not do so.

Mr. Barnes: Government amendment No. 13 is a constitutional insult. The Government should not deal with the Bill as though it were an Act of Parliament. I do not know what precedents exist for that. I assume that they are bad precedents and I doubt whether many precedents deal with constitutional matters.
I wish to support amendment No. 3. A reform of local government boundaries should not take place alongside a reform of parliamentary boundaries because the paramet-ers within which the commissioners are supposed to act, as provided in the Bill, place them in an invidious position.

Considerations about changes in local government areas are affected by considerations for parliamentary boundaries, and vice-versa.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder which review he will cancel: the review of local government boundaries; the review of local government structure; or the parliamentary boundary commission review. If we cannot run any of those in parallel, something must give. Which one would the hon. Gentleman dispense with?

Mr. Barnes: I shall leave the problem of which problem to sort out first with the Minister. It would be possible to go ahead with parliamentary boundary reviews relating to existing local government structures while, at the same time, engaging in discussions about local government structures to come into place later. Obviously, the two will then be out of line but later, when a further parliamentary boundaries review takes place, the position will be adjusted according to local government boundaries. That is one way in which the problem could be tackled but one set of commissioners should not have to consult another set of commissioners about what is taking place.

Mr. Lloyd: They do not.

Mr. Barnes: Policy guidance documents issued by the Department of the Environment say that, for the purposes of local government boundaries reviews, a number of people must be consulted. Many of the areas in which interest should be taken are reasonable, and the document says that particular account should be taken of the views of Members of Parliament. But among the people to be consulted, the document also lists the parliamentary boundary commission. That shows at least one way round the problem—in altering local government boundaries, consultations must take place with the parliamentary boundary commission.
That seems to be fraught with danger, and nowhere more so than in Derbyshire. We have often heard Conservative Members refer to David Bookbinder as a demon. Now that he has been replaced as leader, presumably Martin Doughty's name will be used instead. Martin Doughty responded to the local government boundary changes suggested for Derbyshire, which is included in the first tranche of local government authorities. The alterations to Derbyshire's local government boundaries will be taken into account when considering parliamentary boundaries. Derbyshire is not down to be considered for early parliamentary boundary changes, and is likely to be in the last tranche to be reviewed, so new arrangements will have to be made.
On page 76 of County News, 14 June 1992, Martin Doughty states:
Eight of the ten authorities chosen for immediate scrutiny by the Government were either set up following the 1974 local government reorganisation, or border onto those councils.
The exceptions are the Isle of Wight which has two small districts within the county boundary, and Derbyshire which at this stage seems to stand alone".
We are told that the Derbyshire review has to take place because of concern about the county and its boundaries. Those worries had been mainly expressed by Conservative Members from Derbyshire. Pressure has been applied by the politics of Conservatism in Derbyshire to ensure that that county is included in the first tranche. That should not be a reason for including Derbyshire in the review of local


government at the initial stage when the parliamentary boundary review and consideration of parliamentary seats are included in the arrangements.
There is a considerable danger in a county such as Derbyshire being put forward for the local government review and the parliamentary boundary review. It may be that the parliamentary review will be limited to the current boundaries of Derbyshire and split that county into a number of regions, but it is possible for the local government commissioner to ask the Minister for other districts to be considered and added to the review. We would then have a problem, as some authorities in Derbyshire might begin to shrink, while others expanded. Even if that does not happen, we should not allow the Minister even to consider it. That should be set out clearly in legislation.
It should be clearly set out in legislation that boundaries constitute one parliamentary sphere and local authorities another, and the two should not be cross-referenced or alterations made to the political map that help certain groups close to the Government. The Minister should seriously consider amendment No. 3, which begins to resolve some of those problems. He should carefully respond, particularly in relation to whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I shall try to keep my remarks brief—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should never tempt me into making long speeches—they might get one.
I apologise for missing the Minister's earlier remarks, but ! want to speak entirely about Scotland this evening. Unlike in England and Wales, no independent commission is looking into local government reform and reorganisa-tion in Scotland. That is entirely at the whim of Ministers, who make proposals and then push through legislation. That can never be right. Even at this late stage, an independent commission should he set up.
Let us examine the time scale for local government reform and its relationship to the parliamentary boundary commission. It appears that in September this year there will be a White Paper with Government proposals on Scottish local government. I am told that it will contain a series of proposals, offering choices and even various maps. We do not know if that is true, but certainly there will be no legislation this Session. It will be November 1993, the Queen's Speech, before we even know what the final proposals are. The legislation will then go through the House of Commons. The regional elections planned for May 1994 will be cancelled and the regions will be allowed to continue until the legislation becomes an Act and the new structure is put in place for May 1996. The boundary commission might therefore report in 1994 with no idea of what the new local government structure in Scotland will be. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has come out with some very odd and vague ideas, concentrating on only one aspect—Eastwood district council should remain in existence and hell-mend the other authorities in Scotland. On the other hand, the commission might not do its job and might allow the local government boundary reforms to take place and then set up new parliamentry boundaries related to the new local government structure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, the latter is the best way of

approaching the matter. It ensures the continuing links between Members of Parliament and local government areas, so that they will not find themselves representing various parts of various local authorities. Ideally, they will represent only one—

Mr. Home Robertson: Or two.

Mr. Maxton: Two would be fine, if there is a two-tier structure, but we should not have to represent a mass of local authorities.
Is it impossible for the boundary commission to wait for the new local government structure in Scotland to be in place? No. I accept that the boundary commission can only begin its work; it cannot finalise it on the basis of the first draft of the first Bill to come before the House, in November 1993. Presumably, that legislation will complete all its stages by June 1994. By then, it may have been changed and the commission will have to take account of the changes. Last time we effected a major local government reform in this place—not that I was here—the legislation was changed significantly as it went through this place and the other place.
In June 1994, the boundary commission would have to lay out its draft boundaries for the parliamentary seats in Scotland. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the final drafting and submissions not being ready until February or March 1995. After all, we have just had a general election, in April. This place works on a five-year lifespan. Therefore, at least constitutionally, the next general election will take place in April, or even May, 1997. That is when the parliamentary boundaries need to be in place unless we witness another occasion when a Prime Minister believes that he can rig the election by calling it when it suits his purpose rather than that of anyone else.
The fact is that, in constitutional theory, the next election will take place in April 1997. Why all the rush and hurry about getting the boundaries in place before then? Even if the Government decided on a four-year term rather than a five-year one, my time scale would still allow time for the boundaries to be in place by April 1996. We would then have the new parliamentary and local government boundaries in place at the same time. That is the sensible way forward and I hope that the Minister will take heed of it.

Mr. Maclennan: The different treatments given to Wales and Scotland by the Bill are understandable in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales has made his intentions clear. However, it is unsatisfactory that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sat through the debate and kept the intentions of the Scottish Office entirely covert.
The Bill would affect Scotland, England and Wales differently. It would be reasonable to expect the Under-Secretary to explain precisely how the Bill is intended to operate in Scotland. Under the 1986 Act, Scotland is not in the same position as England and Wales. Schedule 2(4) to the Act clearly sets out that Scotland is to be treated differently and that the boundary commission in Scotland is required to have regard to local government boundaries. If the Bill becomes law and the Government amendments are accepted, the boundary commission in Scotland will have no option but to act on existing local government boundaries and to produce a report which, if the Government's intentions as expressed by the Scottish


Office are clear, will be overtaken by structural changes as soon as they are implemented by the House. Therefore, Scottish local government and parliamentary boundaries, which should coincide or at least bear some relationship to each other, will probably be completely different. That is not satisfactory. It is up to the Under-Secretary to explain when he intends to bring forward the structural proposals for change so that we can consider them before the Bill leaves the House and assess whether a measure such as that proposed for Wales would be appropriate for Scotland. However, in Scotland, we have no proposals to consider.
Although the procedure for Wales is unusual, it relates to the facts as they were spelt out by the Ministers responsible for Wales. The proposal is understandable, if novel, but the great cloud of unknowing in respect of what will happen in Scotland is unacceptable. We do not know whether the work of the boundary commission in Scotland will be accelerated, which many people would accept, or whether the boundary commission's recommendations will diverge from any that may have to be considered later in this Parliament.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have noted what most hon. Members have said. Some of their points have been lost in the obscurity of my handwriting, so I shall start with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I should like him to confirm whether he made this following point, because it is less logical than most of his points. He appeared to want the boundary commission to ignore some changes that Parliament will have willed in local government boundaries and that will already be in operation when it makes its report. Is that so? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am glad that, at least to that extent, he agrees with the Government that, if there are local government changes in operation by the time that the parliamentary boundary commissions have to make their final report, they should take those into account in their reports.
The hon. Gentleman then queried the opportunities for provisional recommendations to be taken into account before the boundaries are in operation. That will be legitimate only—except in the case of Wales—if they have been legislated for. They will not be acceptable in arty final report unless they are in operation. Throughout the debate, many hon. Members have talked as if the final report could be based on recommendations that appeared only in a Bill that had had Second Reading when it can only be for recommendations that have had statutory form through becoming an Act. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Darling: I bet the Minister would—it was painfully obvious that he was taken by surprise when he was called to speak. I will give him this opportunity to wake up. My point was that it is conceivable, especially in England because of the way in which the Government are going about local authority changes, that there could be areas in which there were new boundaries in operation, or at least enacted and capable of being in operation, and others where they were not. I was concerned that, in such an area, the boundary commission might make recommendations that were partly based on new boundaries and partly on

old boundaries. I would not urge the boundary commission to ignore a new local authority area. However, I am concerned about the mixture.

Mr. Lloyd: With the rolling programme in which sectors of the country are taken as they will be in the local government review, that must inevitably be so if those reviews roll across the date of 1 June 1994, which is the cut-off point for the convenience of the boundary commission so that it knows what it has to take into account and what it does not have to take into account. If we accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment, the boundary commission would be in great confusion as to what it should be taking into account. Inevitably there will be a mixture.
The hon. Gentleman also assumes that the revised local government structure will, somehow, produce more favourable circumstances, and therefore constituency changes, for the Conservative party than existing local government boundaries. I do not know how he can assert that, as he does not know what the local government commissions will be recommending. He cannot possibly make that prediction, and I suspect that he has no principled objection to the arrangements being made and does not know how they will end up but finds it a little easier to fill in his time by spraying around assertions that he cannot sustain.
Like others, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the timing of local government restructuring in Scotland. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State has said that there will be a further consultation stage in Scotland this autumn. This will probably give some idea of how the Government will implement their manifesto commitment. The Secretary of State has not given any idea of timing. The current thinking is that there will be a Bill in the 1993–94 Session and that Royal Assent may be given in the summer of 1994. Elections for the new authorities could take place in the spring of 1995, with the new authorities coming into effect in April 1996—well after the parliamentary boundary commission will have been obliged to report.

Mr. Maxton: Did the hon. Gentleman say that there could be elections in 1995? The legislation is unlikely to be through this place much before October or November of 1994.

Mr. Lloyd: There may be a need to elect a shadow authority to take over from the existing authority for a period. If the new structure comes into effect in 1996, which is quite possible, I think that even the hon. Gentleman would accept that that will be well after the commission has to report. It would be extremely difficult for the commission to take the new local government boundaries into account two years after it had to report.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister confirming that the regional elections of May 1994 will be cancelled? That would appear to be the implication of what he is saying.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may draw what inferences he thinks logical from what I say. These are matters for the Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall not trespass too far on matters that he will be making clearer in his consultation document later this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), in an interesting and well-informed speech, rightly said that local government boundaries need to be


known before they can be taken into account by boundary commissions. That is the basic common sense that underlies this measure, but it was not adopted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The hon. Gentleman invited me to withdraw amendment No. 13, which he described as improper and presump-tuous. In fact, it is entirely sensible and practicable.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth professed to be outraged. That was either because he had not followed the debate—he certainly had not followed clearly what is in the Bill or in the amendments—or, more likely, because he felt that he needed to generate some strong emotion to compensate for the lethargic Opposition Members sitting behind him, as well as empty Benches, while he was speaking.
There is no question of the Government taking Parliament for granted. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was wheeled on to make the bluster that I have described. He will know that the plan is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will produce a White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the reform that is planned and the timetable.

Mr. Michael: If there was a need to wake anyone, it was the Minister. Very few Conservative Members were sitting behind him whereas the Opposition had the presence of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). My hon. Friends on the Opposition Back Benches have given their Front-Bench colleagues lively support. The Minister has suggested that we are divided against one another when we are not. The reality is that he is divided against himself on amendment No. 13. We say that the Bill should not proceed on the detail of a piece of proposed legislation that has not passed through the House. We certainly should not ask the Boundary Commission for Wales to do so. It is as simple as that. The Minister seems not to understand that.

Mr. Lloyd: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking I could see behind him rather better than he could. I shall return to the argument that he has reiterated when I direct my remarks to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who made the same point. He, too, let his imagination run riot while his common sense took a back seat.
The only assumption that lies behind the Bill is that the Government will introduce a Welsh local government Bill sufficiently early for Parliament to determine its fate well before the Boundary Commission for Wales has prepared its final recommendations, which must depend on what an Act states rather than on what is contained in the Bill. If changes are made to the Bill, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Boundary Commision for Wales will have to take them into account when it makes its final recommendations.
Should the Bill be defeated, the commission will have to operate on the basis of current boundaries. Parliament is not being taken for granted. Instead, there is an opportunity for the Boundary Commission for Wales to take into account the sort of structure that is proposed in the Bill in the full knowledge that it will have to revise its thinking if the Bill is amended before its reaches the statute book.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) approved of the guidelines for the local government boundary commission. He said that, in London, the time had come to cross the borough boundaries. In fact, there is a principle that there should be constituencies of more or less equal size. I understood from what he said that he accepted that as a general principle, while emphasising that that does not always fit easily with respecting local government and other boundaries and social links. That tension will always be there and the boundary commission must balance that. No doubt its members will read the report of this debate and note the remarks that the hon. Gentleman and others made about the position in London. There is sufficient guidance for the boundary commission in schedule 2 of the 1986 Act—

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister go a little further and tell the boundary commission that greater priority should be given to the sense of community? That is especially true if it is thinking of crossing borough boundaries. The sense of community, especially in inner-city areas, must be maintained; it must not be subservient to the geographical lines, which often appear to override the sense of community.

Mr. Lloyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and no doubt the commission will note his views. It would be wrong of me to give additional guidance to the commission on how to interpret its responsibilities. Its guidance is contained in the schedule to the 1986 Act, and it is for the boundary commission, not me, to construe that.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) recommended that we do exactly what we are planning to do in Scotland, which is not to make changes until the local government boundaries are either in statute form or in place. That is why the arrangements in the Bill for Scotland differ from those for Wales. I am sure that that makes complete sense. It is for the convenience of the boundary commissions and for the more accurate delineation of the constituency boundaries along the lines of those that are about to come into existence or that have already done so.
I ask the Committee to support the amendment and to reject the Opposition amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 31.—[Mr. Darling.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 298.

Division No. 39]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Alton, David
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blair, Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyce, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Boyes, Roland


Austin-Walker, John
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Battle, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Byers, Stephen


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard






Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Hutton, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Cann, James
Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'I Br'g'n)


Cryer, Bob
Khabra, Piara


Cummings, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dafis, Cynog
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Loyden, Eddie


Denham, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
MacDonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, William
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McMaster, Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Derek (B 'p Auckland)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Galbraith, Sam
Martlew, Eric


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Gapes, Michael
Meacher, Michael


George, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoff
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.





Pope, Greg
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Giles
Trimble, David


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Reid, Dr John
Wallace, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walley, Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roche, Ms Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Spellar, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cash, William


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Congdon, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Y/yre For'st)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Carrington, Matthew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carttiss, Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley






Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, John
Milligan, Stephen


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nicholas
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wells, Bowen


Sykes, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Willetts, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Walden, George
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 2 to 16.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.

COMPANIES

That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1196), dated 19th May 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Housing (Percentage of Approved Expense for Repairs Grants) (Lead Plumbing and Radon Gas Works) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft British Gas pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft British Telecommunications pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

AIR TRANSPORT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8051/91, relating to competition in the air transport sector, 8090/91, relating to an Agreement between the Community and the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden on civil aviation, and 8270/91, relating to establishment of a single Community market in air transport; welcomes their general thrust, noting that the promotion of a liberal air transport market in Europe and the removal of artificial restrictions imposed by central government on the freedom of enterprise has been the United Kingdom's policy objective for several years; and supports the Government in seeking to establish as liberal a regime as possible in Europe, while providing safeguards to protect consumers and carriers from the effect of exploitation or predatory practices.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Human Rights (Brazil)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell]

Mr. David Alton: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problem of human rights abuses in Brazil. I particularly want to draw the House's attention to the problem of the street killings of Brazilian children and the selling of other children into sex slavery.
I am pleased to see that a number of other hon. Members are in their places who I know hope to speak in the debate. I should especially like to thank the hon. Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who, with me, have formed the all-party group to fight for the rights of Brazilian street children. They hope to be able to speak.
In the past months, in conjunction with the Jubilee campaign, we have endeavoured to raise the plight of the children who have been dying by their thousands in Brazil. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is in his place to answer the debate, for the personal interest that he has taken, and in so doing I link officials in his Department who were good enough to arrange the visit of Paulo Melo—a deputy in Rio who was a street child—to London in May, when he met the hon. Members for South Dorset and for Edinburgh, South and briefed us on the position first-hand.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister for taking time during his visit to the Rio summit to visit Sao Martinho—a Catholic home run for Brazilian street children—for taking the trouble to make representations to the Brazilian Government and for taking time to see Paulo Melo.
The purpose of the debate is to underline the widespread all-party concern about the killings and the sending of young children into sex slavery. I hope that the debate will encourage the Government to persist in their efforts to bring the killings to an end.
What are the facts? It is estimated that about 7 million homeless children live on the streets of Brazil. There are thought to be a further 10 million children on the streets who are not technically homeless. They are the victims of disease, hunger, drugs, vice and violence. They are preyed upon by criminals, the police and gunmen hired by local business men to clean up the neighbourhoods. In Rio alone, there are some 800,000 street children, of whom 20,000 have no homes. The rest have either run away or have been forced into begging or selling by their families. Many come from dispossessed peasant families who have lost their land and have moved to the sprawling favellas that surround the city. Church leaders estimate that in the past three years alone 5,000 poor children have been murdered in Brazil.
In his meeting with the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South and for South Dorset and myself, Paulo Melo produced official figures confirming more than 300 killings of children in Rio in the past year alone, with another 10,000 suffering from the effects of violence. Last week, an independent research group in Rio, the Centre for the Mobilisation of Marginalised Populations, put the number of adolescents and children murdered in the state of Rio in the past year at the even higher figure of 700.
In addition to the killings, the Anti-Slavery International group made a submission to the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights in May this year. It highlighted the trafficking of young women and children into sex slavery and prostitution. State deputy Joao Batista repeatedly raised the issue. For his pains, he was shot dead in 1988. Paulo Melo told us how he had been forced personally to finance the publication of his parliamentary commission's report because the authorities disapproved of its contents. He also said that he had been threatened by a senior judge when he gave support to a grieving family who were seeking justice.
The complicity of the police, of the judiciary and of the highest reaches of Brazilian society has meant that the killings have continued and that the murders have gone on with impunity. Paulo Melo showed us in this building photographs of some of the children who had been butchered and dumped like vermin on the streets. The newspaper reports he gave us have a chilling familiarity, daily cataloguing the deaths of little children. Usually a child's body is found with several knife wounds or bullet holes. Torture is followed by a final, fatal wound to the head. Some children simply disappear. The allegation has also been made to me that in some cases the youngsters who have disappeared have been used as spare parts in expensive organ transplant operations in the United States and in Europe.
In addition to all those abuses of human rights, Brazil faces endemic, grinding poverty. It has a colossal foreign debt of $114 billion. Despite having ample means with which to feed its 144 million people, the world's eighth largest economy is unable to do so because it is also the most indebted. The result is that in some areas, 200 of every 1,000 children born may die in infancy. Last year, 350,000 children died of preventable diseases and one third of Brazilian children suffer from malnutrition.
What are we to do in the face of all that? First, the Government must continue to use every possible diplomatic and economic measure against Brazil until it brings to justice the perpetrators of the violence. Secondly, we should link our aid to measures that will create a more just society. Thirdly, we should demand to know what has happened to the children who were swept off the streets in preparation for the Rio summit. Fourthly, we should support practically places such as Sao Martinho, which feeds 200 children daily. It is desperate for food and resources. The Prime Minister himself visited it during his recent stay and it was previously visited by the Princess of Wales. Fifthly, we should ask our officials in Brazil—I hope that the Minister will be able to give this undertaking tonight—to monitor and to continue to investigate the allegations concerning racketeering in human organs for transplant, the selling of children into sex slavery and the complicity of the authorities in the murders of children.
Men such as Paulo Melo run huge personal risks in exposing those acts of barbarism and cruelty. By supporting him, Parliament will act true to the spirit of William Wilberforce, our greatest ever champion of human rights. He once said:
It is a barbarous policy which confronts the troubles of a turbulent land by the extermination of its own inhabitants. This is the calm, not of order, but of inaction; it is not tranquillity, but the stillness of death.
So it is in Brazil today.

Mr. Ian Bruce: People may wonder why Members of Parliament become especially passionately involved in a particular cause. My eyes were opened to the issue because an individual constituent was brought face to face with the problems, which is often the reason why Members of Parliament become involved.
Bruce Harris is the South American director of Casa Alianza, or the convent house. He is a constituent of mine who lived in Wareham and now works in South America. He made a plea for help to me because he was being shot at in Guatemala simply for trying to bring to the public's attention the sort of problems that we have also witnessed in Brazil and other countries.
The House can do a great deal to urge the Government to talk to their counterparts in Latin America. The spotlight has already been switched on. The Government should keep it focused on the problem until it is tackled properly by the people on the ground. There is no question but that all the people of Brazil will need to concentrate their minds and efforts to make their Government work towards solving the problems.
I pay tribute to the Minister, whom I know has visited various Governments and discussed the problem. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister. When he attended the conference in Brazil a fortnight ago one of his main acts was to show that street children are of great concern to this country. We do not want to be over-critical this evening. We want to offer the hand of friendship to the people of Brazil and to their Government. We are trying to help them and this evening's spotlight will help to illuminate the problem.
My colleagues, who started the all-party street children group, will continue to work until we feel that the problem has been properly tackled.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As we all know, the Earth summit has moved on from Rio, but visitors to it, including the Prime Minister, and the world press saw a great deal and focused attention on the plight of the street children there.
As many of the world's wealthy countries gathered there was genuine shock at the plight of street children, which has been highlighted in the excellent report from the Jubilee campaign on street children in Brazil and Guatemala. I believe that its campaign to protect children's rights did a great deal to ensure that street children were not subject to wholesale clearances and slaughter when the summit took place, although I accept what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said about the unanswered questions. I pay tribute to him for his work and for securing this Adjournment debate. As he rightly said, it is a question not merely of murder but of sex slavery.
I pay tribute to Mr. Wilfred Wong of Frederick street in London for his efforts to draw the matter to my attention and to that of other members of my party. The concern showed by the Government is greatly appreciated. The Brazilian Government must take action to stop child poverty, child prostitution and killings, to bring traffickers and murderers to justice, and to provide proper accommodation and education for those children.
The western banks and financiers must relieve the crushing burden of debt. We will welcome the Minister's comments on those issues and his support in progressing the matter to end human misery on a massive scale.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) who has done a great service to the House in raising a matter that we must all be troubled about.
I have been to South America. I attended the world conference of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, about 19 months ago in Quito, Ecuador. Although that is not Brazil, I saw street children. I saw the extraordinary contrast between Members of Parliament from all over the world, attending a conference with all the razzmatazz, and staying in a wonderful hotel provided with every conceivable comfort, and the children who were sleeping on the pavement outside that hotel all night.
When we went out by bus we had police protection from the children. When we went out to various engagements and occasions at night and we returned to the hotel at midnight, hundreds of children surrounded the coaches asking for anything that we could provide for them.
Brazil is a relatively prosperous country compared with some of the other South American countries. But I want to make it plain to the House that the problem of street children goes right across South America. It is the result of over-population. The national and local governments cannot fulfil the housing and economic needs of large families. Most of the street children come from excessively large families. The parents can no longer care for the young so the children are pushed out on to the street, where they form their own street gangs. It is extremely difficult for those young people ever to have normal lives again. They protect, feed and help each other but it is not surprising that in Sao Paulo in Brazil four fifths of today's prison population comprises former street children. It is an epidemic problem.
At the Quito conference I found it disturbing that, although I and the British delegation raised the problem of street children, the South American countries did not want to discuss the matter. One country said that the problem was being dealt with and hostels were being built. But none of the countries was comfortable discussing or seeking to deal with the problem of street children.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has undertaken an important task in asking the British Government what they can do about street children. It is a hideous, bizarre and horrific problem. I suggest that the British Government have to decide whether they can take a position. I do riot believe that they can do much on their own. I understand that the British Government gives £1.4 million in support to Brazil. Together the European Community countries give £47 million to Brazil. The institution of the EC gives £1.4 million. Altogether, Britain, the EC countries and the EC give almost £50 million to Brazil.
I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), here tonight. I know that he is interested in the matter and will be anxious to do what he can. I would have thought that it would do a great deal of good if that £50 million were directed to the

Brazilian Government on the condition that they did something about the problem and came back to the EC with practical proposals.
The problem of street children is a problem of over-population and large families. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether grants could be made to help the International Planned Parenthood Federation to do its splendid work. That would do a great deal to help street children in the years to come.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Its importance has been underlined by the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), has also remained here specifically to listen to the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently visited Brazil. That visit drew attention to not only Latin America and the environment but the problem of street children. My right hon. Friend reported to the House on 15 June on his visit to Rio. A passage in that report contained information about his discussions with President Collor about street children. I shall return to that later in my remarks. We are all very much aware of, and distressed by, the human rights situation in Brazil, which the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House this evening.
The plight of street children is particularly tragic. Human rights abuses are always a matter for concern, particularly when children are the target. We hope that the attention which the Earth summit has brought to their existence will serve to act as a catalyst to action to improve their situation.
To pick up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, Ministers of the EC and the Rio group, which includes Brazil, agreed at their meeting in Santiago on 29 May, which I attended, to pay special regard to the needs of children. But we should not overlook the efforts which President Collor and his administration have begun to make—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset.
The Brazilian Government adopted the Statute of the Child in 1990. A parliamentary commission into the assassination of street children has been set up and its report recently adopted. While confirming the gravity of the problem, it has made a number of practical recommendations, for example, on the carrying of firearms by security firms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said in the House on 2 June, the Prime Minister, who visited a refuge for street children in Rio, raised the subject with President Collor and expressed readiness to continue to help. As President Collor told the Prime Minister, the federal Government are pressing those states most affected to take steps to defend children against abuse.
Hon. Members will be interested to know that municipalities now do not get Government help unless


they have a programme in place for street children. The Attorney-General is taking steps to correct the position where members of the military and the military police cannot be tried by civil courts, and is seeking to punish those responsible for deaths. The private sector is also helping. A number of companies in Brazil have adopted street children's centres. All that gives us some modest reason for hope for the future as far as these children are concerned.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said, the phenomenon of abandoned children is not confined to Rio de Janeiro. It is acute in other parts of Brazil but also prevalent in many other countries, not just in Latin America. It stems principally from poverty and lack of education.
We are discussing with the Brazilian authorities a number of urban health care projects, and we are assisting the non-governmental organizations—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Oxfam—in their work in that area. Child Hope UK has just received some £100,000, and Flowers of Tomorrow £20,000 during Baroness Chalker's recent visit to Rio de Janeiro.
As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is well aware, we invited Dr. Paulo Melo, the President of the Rio state commission on the extermination of street children, to come to the United Kingdom in May as a guest of Government to discuss the problem. He has a number of interesting ideas in mind—for example, the expansion of professionally staffed legal centres which make it possible for people to lodge complaints against the police in an effective way. My officials and I shall keep in touch with him to help where we can. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, Dr. Melo—a former street child—said that the United Kingdom has done more to help than any other nation. I recognise that, given the scale of the problem, that should not and will not make us complacent. But in view of Dr. Melo's standing in his subject, we can take some satisfaction from it.
We cannot bring about change single-handed and it is the Brazilian authorities that have the first responsibility. UNICEF is already working with the Brazilian authorities, assisting with police training. We have impressed upon the Brazilians the need to control child abuse. Some of the problem stems from the fact that children under 18 cannot be held responsible for criminal acts under the law, so very young children are often encouraged by their elders to embark on a life of criminal

violence. I visited street children in Guatemala and can say that not all street children are young innocents. But the problem is that the fear that they instil in the public ensures that punishment falls on innocent and guilty alike —and often very terrible indeed it is.
It will take time to eradicate ill-treatment by vigilante groups, but I believe that a start is being made. The Brazilians themselves and the Brazilian Government are those we must look to for prime action, although we shall continue to encourage and support them. We are well aware that street children are not the only problem. The fate of young girls recruited as domestic staff in the mining camps is also beginning to cause serious concern. That problem will be even more difficult to control because abuse tends to take place in districts far removed from the rule of law. Once again, the solution is education and training which would allow those girls to earn a proper living. Their plight is a familiar phenomenon of under-development. We have just heard of similar problems in Mozambique. I hope, as I am sure do other hon. Members, that the Rio debate on sustainable development will lead, in time, to conditions in which the pressures that create the problems of street children and rural exploitation begin to fade.
Abuse of human rights is, alas, widespread, and I hope that the House will allow me to mention rural workers, whose problems we have not either forgotten or ignored. After the interest created by the Chico Mendes trial, we have continued to monitor the position closely, particularly the annulment of the sentence of one of the accused, Darly Alves da Silva, who is due to be re-tried. We are in close touch with the Rubber Tappers Union and the Amazon workers centre on that. We have also arranged with the procurator general to be present at other impending, but less publicised trials, wherever possible.
I have listened with care to the views of hon. Members tonight and I share their concerns. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made those concerns known at the highest level in Brazil. We are doing what we can, but there is no simple or quick solution to the problem. The answer lies in tackling the problems of poverty and poor education. We will continue to encourage the Brazilian authorities and work with them and the admirable NGOs to help to find a solution to the terrible problems that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill brought to our attention tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.